dashclaw

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention idempotency, authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing environments), or error conditions. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect agent assumptions about safe usage.

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

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

The description is a single, short sentence that efficiently conveys the primary purpose. However, it may be too concise, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity. It earns points for being front-loaded with the key action.

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

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

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, required project state, and behavior on duplicates or errors. The current text is insufficient for an agent to gauge the full implications of calling this tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The 'project' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, but the schema's description for 'kind' ('Inferred from name if omitted') is present. The description's example ('staging, production') aligns with the name parameter but does not clarify the project parameter's role or constraints.

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

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

The description clearly states the action 'Add an environment' and provides concrete examples ('e.g. staging, production') to illustrate what an environment is. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'list_environments' by focusing on adding a specific resource.

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

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, context, or situations where it should not be used. For example, it does not indicate that you might need to list existing environments first or that the project must already exist.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clarifies that the tool never executes the provider call, which is a key behavioral note. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, permissions required, or safety characteristics like destructiveness. More transparency would be beneficial.

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

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

Extremely concise with two sentences. Every word adds value, and the critical behavioral note is front-loaded. No redundant information.

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

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, workflow, and key behavioral constraint. It could mention what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation), but the lack is compensated by the clear focus on action.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds context: it explains that 'approvalId' comes from an 'approval_required response' and that 'note' is optional. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, providing valuable operational context.

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

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

Clearly states the verb 'Approve' and the resource 'pending action request'. Specifies it is for 'one matching rerun', distinguishing it from sibling 'reject_action' and implied approval-related tools.

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

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

Explicitly states that the tool does not execute the provider call and that the original action must be rerun after approval. This guides the agent on the correct workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, though the context of pending approvals is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully indicates the tool is non-destructive and read-only. However, it does not cover other important behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, 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.

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

The description is a single sentence of 25 words that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.

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

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

Given the tool has 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., 'allowed', 'blocked', 'requires approval'), which is critical for an agent to use the response. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks details on output and parameter interactions.

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

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

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'live' has a description). The tool description does not explain any parameters beyond the overall purpose. For example, it does not clarify that 'live' affects policy evaluation or what values 'capability' and 'provider' mean in context. The description should compensate for the low schema coverage but fails to do so.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to ask whether a specific capability is allowed, blocked, or requires approval for a given provider and environment. It uses a specific verb+resource structure and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'simulate_action' or 'approve_action' by emphasizing that it executes nothing.

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

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

The description explicitly states 'WITHOUT executing anything,' which implies it is safe to use before performing actual actions. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to alternatives, the context is clear enough for basic usage guidance.

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

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

Description discloses a critical behavioral trait: the secret value is never stored. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose other behaviors like whether it overwrites existing connections, required permissions, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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

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

Two focused sentences, no fluff. Immediately states purpose and a key detail (secret not stored). Well-structured for quick scanning.

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

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

Despite low complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description omits return value, error cases, and prerequisites. An AI agent would lack information on what happens after creation and how to handle failures. Incomplete for a creation tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description adds minimal insight beyond schema: it ties envVar to the environment variable concept but does not explain vercelTeamId or provider in more context. Baseline score is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create an explicit provider connection') and the resource ('provider connection'). It also specifies the backing mechanism ('by an environment variable') and a key security property ('secret value is never stored'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_connections.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, such as that the environment variable must already exist, or that this should be used before other provider-related actions. Lacks context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not execute anything, stores results locally under .dashclaw-local/launches/, and associates each step with a guarded tool and reality check. Missing details like overwrite behavior or required permissions cap the score at 4.

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

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

The description is concise—two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the core action, and the second adds important details about tracking, non-execution, and storage. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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

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

The description explains the tool's purpose and behavior well but omits information about the return value or output format. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., the plan object or a confirmation). This gap prevents a higher score.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the declared_stack being a subset of listed components, but the schema already enumerates these. No additional parameter semantics beyond the schema are provided, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool creates a 'stateful launch plan' and explains its role as an ordered step checklist derived from the launch playbook for a declared stack. It distinguishes the tool from execution by noting 'nothing is executed.' This specificity and differentiation from sibling tools like preflight_launch or verify_launch earns a 5.

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

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

The description implies usage for planning a launch without execution, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as preflight_launch (which likely checks readiness) or verify_launch (which verifies after execution). A clear 'use this before running preflight_launch' would raise the score to 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states creation but omits details like idempotency, error handling (e.g., duplicate names), required permissions, or whether the workspace is fixed. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It could be expanded without becoming verbose to include critical context.

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

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

For a simple creation tool, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what 'default workspace' means, what happens on success, or any side effects. Given the absence of an output schema, more contextual detail is needed.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents two parameters. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool creates a new project and specifies the location as 'default workspace'. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like list_projects or select_project.

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

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

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like select_project or write_project_memory, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions staleness tracking and operator validation, but does not address side effects, authorization needs, or any destructive potential. Acceptable but could be more thorough.

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

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

Concise two-sentence structure: first defines purpose with examples, second specifies when to call. No wasted words.

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

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

Given the simple parameter count and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it records, why, and when. Minor gap: no mention of return value or confirmation, but not critical for this tool.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage. The description adds context by explaining the role of action_id (parent action) and assumption (belief), and notes basis as optional. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool records an assumption attached to an action, with specific examples like 'staging tests passed'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on unverified beliefs and linking to parent actions via action_id.

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

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

Explicitly states 'Call right after the action that depends on the belief', providing clear timing guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios where assumptions are already verified or provide alternatives, though the context implies it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses read-only nature, lists behavioral categories (destructive commands, etc.), and details what each suggestion includes. It adds value beyond what annotations would provide.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose and provides essential details without unnecessary repetition. It is concise but could be slightly more structured.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description explains return fields (confidence, sample size, etc.) and directs users to the UI for further actions. It covers the tool's scope adequately for a listing tool with one optional parameter.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Override default agent ID'.

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

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

The description starts with a clear verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'DashClaw Policy Coach suggestions'. It elaborates on the nature of suggestions (evidence-backed, observe-only) and lists specific categories, making it distinct from sibling tools like dashclaw_policies_list or dashclaw_guard.

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

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

The description states the tool is read-only and intended for reviewing suggestions, not for enforcement, which provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to avoid using it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes a read-only operation that lists capabilities without side effects. The disclosure of return fields (IDs, names, health, risk) adds transparency. Could mention pagination or rate limits if applicable, but overall it is clear.

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

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

Two sentences efficiently cover purpose, usage guidance, and return information. Every sentence earns its place, and the key action ('List') is front-loaded. No verbose or redundant phrasing.

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

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

Given 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (IDs, names, health, risk levels). For a simple list tool, this is sufficient. Could optionally mention sorting or default ordering, but not necessary.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context by summarizing the filter capabilities (by category, risk level, search term). This enhances the schema alone, providing a cohesive overview.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available capabilities registered in DashClaw'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like dashclaw_invoke or dashclaw_guard. It also mentions what the output includes (IDs, names, health status, risk levels).

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: before invoking other capabilities. It also explains the filtering options. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, but given its unique purpose, this is not a major gap.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes a query operation (read-only) but does not mention permissions, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action.

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

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

The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though the second sentence could be slightly more specific.

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

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

For a query tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and filters but omits details like default limit, pagination, or output format. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 40% (only limit and since have descriptions). The description adds context by listing filter dimensions (agent, action type, decision, time window), which maps to parameters but does not explain formats or enum values. It partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool queries the guardrail decisions ledger for recent governed actions, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'dashclaw_recent_decisions', which appears similarly named.

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

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

The description provides a usage hint ('Use for in-session retrospection') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

The description fully discloses the return decision types and their implications, including the critical directive to not proceed on 'block'. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden well, though it omits details on side effects like logging or authorization requirements.

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

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

The description is concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could benefit from bullet points for readability, but it efficiently conveys essential information without waste.

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

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

Given the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers basic usage and behavior. However, it lacks details about the decision structure (e.g., additional context like reasons) and does not explain policy evaluation mechanisms, leaving some gaps for a guard tool.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 10 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool evaluates governance policies for risky actions, listing specific return values. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'check_policy' or 'simulate_action', which could overlap in purpose.

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

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

The description explicitly instructs to call this 'BEFORE' risky actions, lists concrete examples of such actions, and provides directives for each possible return value. No alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned, but the context is clear.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency and the effect of marking as consumed. However, it doesn't elaborate on side effects like whether subsequent calls to dashclaw_handoff_latest will return the same handoff.

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

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

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds essential information.

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

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

No output schema is provided. The description covers the action and when to use it, but doesn't explain what happens after marking consumed (e.g., impact on dashclaw_handoff_latest). This is a minor gap for completeness.

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

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

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds valuable context: 'Handoff id (hf_*) from handoff_latest' and 'Optional current session id for provenance', enhancing the schema's meaning.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Mark a handoff as consumed') and the resource ('handoff'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dashclaw_handoff_create and dashclaw_handoff_latest.

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

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

Provides explicit context: 'Call after dashclaw_handoff_latest returns a bundle and you have processed it.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is sufficient for most cases.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates creation but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing handoffs, requires authorization, or has side effects. The behavioral traits beyond the basic action are missing.

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

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

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the verb and resource, the second provides usage context. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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

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

The description covers usage and parameter content but omits return values or outcome (e.g., success indication or bundle ID). For a creation tool, the agent would benefit from knowing what to expect back.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description only repeats the schema's field list for the bundle parameter. It adds no new meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool creates a session handoff bundle for the next session, and the context `Call this when wrapping up` reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like `dashclaw_handoff_consume` and `dashclaw_handoff_latest`.

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

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

The description explicitly says `Call this when wrapping up` and advises including a summary, open loops, decisions, and state. It provides clear when-to-use guidance but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like `dashclaw_session_end`.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description only mentions 'Returns null if no handoff is waiting' but lacks other behavioral traits like auth needs or read-only nature.

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

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

Two sentences: first states purpose and parameters, second gives return value and usage. Front-loaded and efficient, no wasted words.

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

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

No output schema; description only mentions null return but not the shape of a successful handoff. Relationship with sibling tools for consuming handoffs is implied but not explained.

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

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

0% schema description coverage. Description mentions 'for this agent (+ project, optional)' but does not clarify that agent_id is implicit or explain parameter roles beyond that.

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

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

Description clearly states verb 'Fetch' and resource 'latest unconsumed session handoff', specifying agent and optional project. Differentiates from siblings like handoff_consume and handoff_create.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Call this on session start to pick up where the last session left off', providing clear context. However, does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations provided; description mentions output fields (is_read flag, unread_count) but does not disclose ordering, pagination, side effects, or rate limits. For a list tool, minimally transparent.

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

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

Three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, output details. Front-loaded, no redundancy, every sentence contributes.

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

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

With 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return shape and common use cases. Lacks pagination or ordering details, but sufficient for typical use.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining the output (is_read flag, unread_count) and usage pairing. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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

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

Clearly states 'List this agent's DashClaw inbox messages and unread count' – specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like dashclaw_messages_mark_read by mentioning pairing.

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

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

Explicit when to use: 'at the start of a session, or when notified...before deciding what to do next.' Also suggests pairing with dashclaw_messages_mark_read, though no explicit when-not or alternative tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the call is guarded (policy check), executed (HTTP call), and recorded (audit trail) automatically. It also mentions the fallback identity mechanism. Missing details on error handling or failure modes, but covers essential behaviors well.

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

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

Four sentences: main action, what happens (guard, execute, record), when to use vs. alternatives, and a prerequisite action. Every sentence earns its place, front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler or redundancy.

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

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

Given no output schema, describing the return value would be beneficial but not critical. The description covers the input, behavior, and usage context. The tool has nested objects, but the schema handles those. Slightly incomplete due to lack of output description, but still very good.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The description adds context about the overall governance process but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb (invoke), resource (DashClaw-governed capability/external API), and scope (guarded, executed, recorded). It distinguishes from direct HTTP calls and the sibling tool dashclaw_capabilities_list by explicitly contrasting usage. No tautology or vagueness.

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

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

Explicitly says to use this instead of making direct HTTP calls when the target API is registered as a DashClaw capability. Also advises to call dashclaw_capabilities_list first to discover available capability IDs, providing clear when-to-use and prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It states it logs (write) and that outcome can be updated later, but does not disclose idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or success/failure indicators. Basic but incomplete.

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

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

The description is two sentences: the first states the action and object, the second provides usage guidance. No fluff, all information is essential and front-loaded.

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

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

For a tool with 4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains purpose and when to use. However, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or how to later retrieve logged data, which would be helpful for an agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by tying parameters to purpose ('reasoning and outcome'), reinforcing that context and outcome are part of the log. However, agent_id lacks schema description, and the description does not clarify its role, so some gap remains.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool logs a decision and outcome to the learning database, with the explicit purpose of recalling reasoning in future sessions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dashclaw_learning_query (query) and dashclaw_recent_decisions (list).

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

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

The description provides a clear usage context: 'Use after making a non-obvious decision so future sessions can recall the reasoning and outcome.' It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but implies this is for logging, contrasting with query siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'queries' without revealing potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior on empty results. The description is too sparse for a non-annotated tool.

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

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

Extremely concise: two sentences with zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for the agent to quickly understand the tool's role.

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

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

For a simple query tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage timing. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination, or error conditions, which would aid an agent's decision-making.

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

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

Schema coverage is 67% (two of three parameters described). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the function. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given moderate coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Query the learning database') and the resource ('prior decisions and lessons'). It also provides usage context ('Use BEFORE making a decision similar to one you might have made before'), which distinguishes it from other similar sibling tools like dashclaw_learning_log or dashclaw_decisions_recent.

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

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

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use BEFORE making a decision similar to one you might have made before'), but does not mention exclusions or alternatives among sibling tools. The context is clear but could be more comprehensive.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description indicates it's a create operation but offers no details on side effects, permissions, or return behavior. Minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Efficient with no unnecessary words, though could optionally include a note about return value.

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

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

Adequate for a simple creation tool. Lacks details on output or confirmation, but no output schema exists. With no annotations, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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

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

Schema coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no new meaning beyond stating 'action_id is required', which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool registers an open loop on a parent action, distinguishing it from siblings like dashclaw_loop_close and dashclaw_loop_list by focusing on creation.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use when you say I will X later', providing clear context for when to use the tool. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Resolve an open loop,' implying a state change but not disclosing side effects, permanence, or authorization needs. Minimal behavioral info.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with action. Every sentence is necessary and concise.

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

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

Despite low complexity, the description contains an inaccuracy (stating resolution is required) and does not explain what happens when the loop is closed (e.g., side effects on other tools). Incomplete for a simple tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the schema ('requires the loop_id and a short resolution note') but adds no new meaning. It is slightly misleading by implying resolution is required when it is optional.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Resolve an open loop,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dashclaw_loop_add and dashclaw_loop_list by indicating a closing action.

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

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

States 'Call when the followed-up-on item is complete,' providing a clear usage context. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but the guidance is adequate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation listing loops, but does not disclose data freshness, limits, pagination, or whether it is destructive. Basic transparency is present but lacks important 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.

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

Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, no unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., loop details, ordering). It only mentions listing with filters, omitting return format, pagination, and limits. Incomplete for a list tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 67%, so baseline should be higher. The description only says 'with optional filters' without adding meaning to the parameters that lack schema descriptions (status and priority). It does not compensate for the schema gaps.

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

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

Clearly states it lists loops (open or resolved) with optional filters, and provides a specific use case (session start). However, among siblings there are other list tools, but this is distinct as it explicitly targets loops.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use on session start to remember what you promised to follow up on.' This provides clear usage guidance. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: different handling for direct vs broadcast messages, and the return format. It does not mention idempotency or error conditions, but the core behavior is well covered.

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

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

Three sentences with no fluff: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third adds behavioral detail and return value. Front-loaded and efficient.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description includes the return format. It explains the behavioral difference for direct vs broadcast messages and the prerequisite relationship with inbox_list, making it self-contained for the agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. agent_id is explained in schema, message_ids is similarly described.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb (mark) and resource (DashClaw inbox messages) with specific scope (for this agent). It distinguishes from sibling dashclaw_inbox_list by positioning itself as the follow-up action.

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

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

Explicitly specifies when to call ('after processing messages from dashclaw_inbox_list') and why ('so they stop reappearing as unread'). Does not discuss alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

Discloses that it persists a plan and returns a manifest with expiration, but lacks explicit disclosure about destructiveness or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, more behavioral details would be beneficial.

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

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

Two sentences that efficiently communicate purpose, return type, CLI usage, and expiration with no extraneous information.

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

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

Covers purpose, return shape, expiration, and CLI command. Missing error scenarios or behavior on repeated calls, but adequate for a simple persist tool with no output schema.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, referencing 'selected Optimal Files entries' but not detailing the format.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool persists a write plan for Optimal Files entries, specifies the return shape, and mentions the associated CLI command, distinguishing it from sibling tools like dashclaw_optimal_files_preview.

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

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

Provides guidance on how to use the result (CLI command) and notes the 24h expiration, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description fully discloses behavior: read-only, returns per-file plan with confidence, secret-scan, and overwrite-risk flags. No harmful side effects mentioned.

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

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

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. First sentence states core purpose, second adds details and pairing suggestion. Highly efficient.

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

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

Given the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential points: purpose, read-only nature, returned flags, and relationship to sibling. Could optionally describe output structure in more detail.

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

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

Only one parameter (session_id) with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Preview' and the resource 'Optimal Files bundle DashClaw Code Sessions would generate'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool by noting that this is read-only and for previewing, while dashclaw_optimal_files_manifest is for persisting.

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

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

Explicitly states 'Read-only — does NOT write to disk' and recommends pairing with dashclaw_optimal_files_manifest to persist, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: generates RSA-2048 keypair locally (including path and security guarantees), POSTs public key, polls if wait=true, and requires admin approval. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description covers the entire process: key generation, storage, public key POST, polling behavior, and follow-up action. It provides complete context for the tool's usage and lifecycle.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining 'wait' with polling details (max 5 min), 'agent_id' as fallback, and 'agent_name' as shown to admin, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool enrolls the agent's cryptographic identity with DashClaw, explaining the key generation, storage, and public key posting. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing pairing requests in the inbox and mentioning a follow-up action (dashclaw_messages_mark_read).

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

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

The description explicitly connects the tool to operator pairing requests and explains when to use it (when a pairing request is in the inbox). It provides guidance on the 'wait' parameter and suggests a follow-up action, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'active governance policies', implying read-only and non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, return format, or whether inactive policies are excluded. Adequate but minimal.

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

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

Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action, then usage context, then optional filter. Every sentence earns its place.

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

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

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and the filter option. It is complete for the agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter agent_id has a clear description. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly states 'List active governance policies' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the purpose of understanding rules before actions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_policy (checks a specific policy) and list_policy_rules (lists rules).

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

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

Explicitly tells agents when to use: 'before taking actions' and to understand governing rules. Mentions optional filtering by agent. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, never activates enforcement, and describes the gaming-resistant nature of the score. It also clearly details the return data structure.

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

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

The description is fairly long but well-organized with clear separation of purpose, return data, and behavioral constraints. It front-loads the main action and uses quotes to highlight key concepts, though some sentences could be tightened.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description provides a thorough explanation of the return data (score, dimensions, findings with fields). The single optional parameter is clearly explained, and the tool's role as a read-only observability tool is fully covered.

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

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

The schema covers the single parameter with a description, and the tool description adds context by listing the six available dimensions in the return data. This helps the agent understand the parameter's purpose beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool reads the org-wide governance posture score and remediation queue, listing specific return fields (score, six dimensions, open findings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dashclaw_posture_next by focusing on the current posture rather than next steps.

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

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

The description indicates this is a read-only introspection tool and clarifies that resolving findings is operator-driven, not agent-driven. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when-not-to-use, but the context of 'read-only governance retrospection' provides adequate guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and clearly declares the tool as read-only and that fix actions are operator-driven. It does not detail permissions or empty-queue behavior, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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

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

Two efficient sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and return fields; the second clarifies the read-only nature and operator responsibility.

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

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

Given no parameters, no output schema, and simple functionality, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and usage boundaries. Nothing essential is missing.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters (baseline 4). The description adds value by listing the returned fields (severity, points recoverable, evidence, prefilled fix), which goes beyond the input schema.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns the single highest-priority open governance gap with specific fields (severity, points recoverable, evidence, prefilled fix). The explicit use case 'what is the one governance gap I should close next?' makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like dashclaw_posture.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance: use for identifying the top gap to close, and clarifies that preparation/activation is operator-driven, not agent-driven. It could be improved by contrasting with related tools (e.g., dashclaw_posture for listing all gaps).

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation but does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions (e.g., if scoping not supported), or default behavior. The disclosure is minimal.

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

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

The description is a single sentence of 15 words, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and omits important details such as default limit or behavior when scoping is not supported, making it insufficiently informative for its complexity.

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

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

Given the lack of output schema, no annotations, and a confusing sibling tool, the description is critically incomplete. It does not clarify the distinction from 'dashclaw_decisions_recent', describe the response format, or explain how optional parameters affect results.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions 'scoped to project/environment' linking project and environment to scoping, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide format, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states 'Read recent DashClaw guard decisions' which clarifies the verb and resource, and mentions scoping to project/environment. However, the sibling tool 'dashclaw_decisions_recent' is similarly named and not distinguished, causing ambiguity.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dashclaw_decisions_recent'. The description does not include exclusions, prerequisites, or context-specific recommendations.

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

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

Without annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It states the tool records an action but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it is irreversible, requires permissions, handles duplicates, or provides feedback). No contradictions since annotations are absent, but behavioral details are scant.

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

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

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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

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

Given 15 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description provides general context but does not explain how parameters interplay, typical usage patterns, or what the tool returns upon success. The schema descriptions fill many gaps, but the tool's description could be more complete for complex auditing scenarios.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter well-documented in the input schema. The tool's description adds no extra semantic value beyond stating the overall purpose (recording actions). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already explains the parameters adequately.

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

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

The description explicitly states 'Record a governed action in DashClaw's audit trail' and provides examples ('log significant decisions, completed tasks, or notable outcomes'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like dashclaw_decisions_recent (list) or dashclaw_session_start by focusing on recording actions.

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

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

The description advises when to use the tool ('Use this to log significant decisions, completed tasks, or notable outcomes. Every important action the agent takes should be recorded'). It implies usage context for governance but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though the specificity is sufficient.

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

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

The description states it lists secrets due for rotation, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not elaborate on what 'coming due' means precisely, nor does it describe the output format or any other behavioral traits. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but is only moderately transparent.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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

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

For a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main points: what it does, when to call it, and a precaution. It could mention the return format or error conditions, but it is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

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

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

The description does not explain the 'agent_id' parameter, leaving its purpose ambiguous (only 50% schema coverage). It implicitly relates 'within_days' to the lookahead but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The tool's description lacks sufficient parameter-level guidance.

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

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

The description clearly states it lists secrets due for rotation, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dashclaw_secret_list and dashclaw_secret_mark_rotated by focusing on upcoming rotations and adding the usage context.

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

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

The description gives clear guidance to call this before using credentials and to flag the operator if a credential appears in the result. It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly name alternatives, though sibling tools provide context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states 'metadata only — no values' indicating read-only behavior and lists return fields. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part adds value.

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

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

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the action, what is returned, and the nature (metadata only).

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter 'agent_id' is already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states it lists tracked secrets with metadata only, no values. It distinguishes from sibling secret tools like dashclaw_secret_due (due secrets) and dashclaw_secret_mark_rotated (rotate action).

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

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

The description implies usage for viewing metadata of all secrets but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like dashclaw_secret_due or when not to use (e.g., if secret values are needed). No exclusions or guidance is provided.

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

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the mutation effect (sets timestamp). For a simple operation, this is adequate, but it omits potential side effects like notifications or idempotency. Still, it covers the core behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a usage constraint. No wasted words, front-loaded with key info.

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

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

For a simple tool with one param and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and effect. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a single param 'id' already described as 'Secret id (sec_*)'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('mark as rotated') and the effect ('sets last_rotated_at = now'). It distinguishes from sibling secret tools by noting that registration is an operator task, implying this is specifically for rotation marking.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Agents only call this if the operator instructs', providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. It also implies an alternative (operator handles registration), helping the agent decide not to use this for registration.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'clean lifecycle boundary for governance reporting' which adds context about impact on governance. However, it does not detail side effects like what happens to associated data or whether the session is destroyed. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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

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

Two sentences: first states action, second gives usage guidance and context. Every sentence earns its place. No redundancy. Efficient and front-loaded.

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

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

Description covers purpose and usage, but lacks information about return values, error handling, idempotency, or validation of session state. Given no output schema, missing these behavioral details makes it incomplete for a mutation tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so description does not need to repeat parameter meanings. The description implies usage of 'session_id' and 'status' by saying 'close a session and update its status', but does not mention 'summary'. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Close a DashClaw session and update its status.' The verb 'close' and resource 'session' are specific. The tool name and description naturally distinguish it from sibling tool 'dashclaw_session_start' as its counterpart.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'Call this when the task is complete or if the session needs to be marked as failed.' This provides clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as if the session should remain open.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It reveals the behavioral trait of grouping subsequent actions for tracking and observability, but it does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, or prerequisites like authentication. More details would improve transparency.

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

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

The description is three concise sentences, each adding value: first states the action, second explains the purpose, third gives the usage context. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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

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

For a simple registration tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and usage. However, it lacks details about what the session record contains, how the session ID is returned, and error handling, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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

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

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (agent_id, branch, workspace) beyond what the schema already provides.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Register this agent session with DashClaw' and explains it creates a session record for tracking and observability. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dashclaw_session_end by specifying it should be called at the beginning of a task.

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

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

The description explicitly says to call this tool at the beginning of a task, establishing a governance boundary. While it doesn't mention when not to use it, the context of session start is unambiguous given the sibling dashclaw_session_end for closing.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a static scan returning findings and a passed boolean. It does not explicitly state whether it has side effects (though the name implies read-only), nor does it mention authorization or rate limits. The behavioral description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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

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

The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the action and immediate guidance. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and inputs, the second explains output and post-condition. No wasted words.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, output fields (findings with severity/file/line, passed boolean), and required action. It does not detail findings structure further, but that is acceptable for a scan tool. Slightly more detail on return formatting would improve it.

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

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

Schema coverage is 50% (only 'files' has a description). The description adds minimal semantic value by referring to 'contents of an untrusted skill', linking both parameters together. However, it does not clarify the expected format of 'skill_name' or expand on 'files' beyond the schema's own description. It partially compensates but falls short.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run a static safety scan against the contents of an untrusted skill before loading it.' It identifies the verb (scan), resource (skill contents), and context (before loading). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which perform a safety scan.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('before loading it') and provides actionable guidance: 'If passed=false, do NOT load the skill — show the findings to the operator.' It does not mention alternatives, but the use case is specific and no obvious alternative exists among siblings.

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

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

Description indicates a read-only check ('Check'), but with no annotations, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or return format. For a simple status tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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

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

Single sentence with 8 words, no wasted text. Front-loaded with verb and resource.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough to convey its purpose.

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

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

The input schema has no parameters, so description adds no param info. According to rules, 0 parameters baseline is 4.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'DashClaw authoritative gate configuration and reachability.' It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like dashclaw_guard or dashclaw_posture.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many dashclaw tools. It implies usage for checking gate status, but lacks when-not-to-use or comparisons.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains polling behavior, default timeout (300 seconds), and that it waits until status changes. It does not disclose whether the action is interruptible or what happens on timeout, but overall fairly transparent.

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

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

Two sentences with clear front-loading of purpose. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. Highly concise.

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

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

No output schema exists, but description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., status after approval/denial). It covers usage context and behavior well but omits return value information.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it reiterates default timeout and mentions polling context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool waits for human approval/denial of a pending action. It specifies when to invoke: after guard decision returns 'require_approval' or after recording an action with 'pending_approval' status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve_action and reject_action.

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

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

Explicitly tells when to use the tool (after guard decision or pending approval). It provides a clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use, though the purpose is well-defined.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the non-destructive read nature and lists what is returned. However, it does not mention error conditions, permissions, or side effects (likely none).

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

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

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action 'Check a DashClaw work order' followed by concise enumeration of outputs.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main outputs adequately. It could benefit from noting the read-only nature or mentioning error scenarios, but overall it is complete enough.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter work_order_id. The main description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool checks a DashClaw work order and lists specific outputs: lifecycle status, worker, guard decision, and self-verifying receipt. Verb 'Check' and resource 'DashClaw work order' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like dashclaw_work_order_submit (submit) and dashclaw_status (general status).

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

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

Description implies usage after submission ('once terminal') but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like dashclaw_status. No exclusions or contextual guidance beyond the basic purpose.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool validates, guard-gates, and queues the order, and returns work_order_id + status + guard decision. However, it does not explicitly state whether the submission creates a new resource (implied by 'queued'), or mention authorization requirements or idempotency. The lack of annotations and missing details on side effects limit transparency to a 3.

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

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

The description is three sentences, front-loading the core action and key behavioral notes (validation, guard, queuing). Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is logical and efficient.

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

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

Given 4 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description covers the submission process, return fields, and guard behavior. It does not explain what happens if parked (e.g., waiting for approval), but the mention of 'guard decision' and the existence of a related tool `dashclaw_wait_for_approval` mitigate this. The description is comprehensive for a submission tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining that `max_cost_usd` and `timeout_seconds` fall back to type defaults, and that `type` must be a registered work order type. This context goes beyond the schema descriptions, helping the agent understand parameter behavior. A 4 reflects strong addition without being exhaustive.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Submit a DashClaw work order' with a specific verb and resource. It explains the nature (typed, budget-capped, governed by policy) and briefly outlines the submission process (validation, guard-gating, queuing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dashclaw_invoke or dashclaw_handoff_create, which have different purposes.

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

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

The description mentions that the order is 'guard-gated (may be blocked or parked for human approval)' and validated, giving implicit guidance on when it might be blocked. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dashclaw_invoke for direct execution, or dashclaw_handoff_create for handoffs). A 3 reflects adequate but not explicit guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the check is local and read-only (except for a fetched platform section), and specifies that the platform section is read-only. It does not mention side effects, but the tool appears safe.

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

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

The description is two efficient sentences. The first states the core purpose and lists checks; the second adds conditional behavior. No wasted words, essential information front-loaded.

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

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable understanding of the tool's behavior. It explains what it checks, conditional results, and parameter roles. Missing output format details but sufficient for a diagnostic tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and schema descriptions already explain the parameters clearly (project and environment). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond implying they affect the checks. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly defines the tool as running local readiness checks and lists specific components checked (project/environment resolution, mappings, credential env vars, audit writability). It distinguishes itself from siblings, which are primarily dashclaw-related tools, by focusing on local diagnostics.

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

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (for readiness checks) and mentions conditional behavior when credentials are configured. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives, though the context is sufficient for an agent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It states the tool does not execute the action, implying it is non-destructive, but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or what happens if policies fail. This is minimal transparency.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical details that could be added without excessive length. It achieves brevity at the expense of completeness.

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

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

Given 8 parameters, no schema description coverage, no output schema, and a complex purpose (explaining risk), the description is vastly incomplete. It does not explain the return value, how to interpret results, or the meaning of 'local policy' and 'DashClaw guard context'.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., 'live', 'tool', 'provider', 'capability', 'environment'). The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the JSON schema field names and types.

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

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

The description clearly indicates it is a dry-run that evaluates local policy and DashClaw guard context without executing the action. This distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like 'approve_action' or 'simulate_action', though 'local policy' and 'DashClaw guard context' are not further explained.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_policy' or 'simulate_action'. There is no mention of when to prefer it or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The verb 'export' implies reading data, but further details are missing.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It fails to convey necessary details about parameters and constraints, making it less useful despite its brevity.

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

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

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It omits key information such as what 'recent' means, how to filter, and the structure of the output.

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

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

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the format parameter (jsonl, csv, markdown) but does not explain limit, project, provider, or environment. Their semantics are left entirely to the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (export), the resource (audit entries), and the output formats (jsonl, csv, markdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_audit_log, which lists but does not export. However, the term 'recent' is vague and lacks specificity.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., list_audit_log). The description does not include any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'export' and 'snapshot'. It does not indicate if the operation is read-only, requires permissions, rate limits, or any side effects.

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

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

Single sentence with no verbosity; front-loaded with action and resource. Every word contributes.

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

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

With no output schema, the description should explain return format or structure. It does not. Also, it fails to differentiate from similar tools like 'get_project_context'.

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

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

The description adds meaning for the 'format' parameter by stating output as JSON or Markdown, which partially compensates for the missing schema description on that parameter. However, it doesn't elaborate on 'project' or 'environment' parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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

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

Clear verb ('export') and resource ('versioned project context snapshot'), with output format options specified. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like export_audit_log or export_dashclaw_evidence.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor conditions to avoid using it. The description lacks context for selection among sibling export tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic function. It does not specify if the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, whether it modifies data, or any rate limits. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that directly states the core function. It is concise but lacks structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters, usage notes). Every word is functional, but important information is omitted.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, 47 sibling tools), the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the output format, the meaning of 'local', parameter roles, or how this tool relates to similar siblings.

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

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention limit, project, provider, or environment at all, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for invoking the tool correctly.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Export') and resource ('local audit entries that include DashClaw guard/evidence metadata'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_audit_log. However, the term 'local' is ambiguous and could be more precise.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., export_audit_log, dashclaw tools). The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that reads are allowed everywhere and audited, and mentions API limitations. However, it doesn't address potential rate limiting, error cases, or the format of the 'API limitation' field, 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.

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

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then provides essential details in a structured manner, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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

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

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return fields (resource, time range, log lines, API limitation) and default provider behavior. It lacks details on error handling or pagination, but is largely complete for a log-fetching tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the default provider behavior (Vercel prioritized) and the effect of omitting the 'project' parameter, but does not significantly expand on the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool fetches application/deployment logs for a project environment, specifying the behavior for single vs multiple providers and listing return fields. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_latest_deployment_logs' by detailing the provider selection logic.

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

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

The description explains when to use the provider parameter versus when to read all mapped providers, and mentions that reads are audited. It could be more explicit about when to prefer this tool over 'get_latest_deployment_logs', but the context is sufficient 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.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only and audited,' which clearly indicates the tool is safe and its usage is logged. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not detail rate limits or performance.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: three short sentences that convey purpose, output, and safety. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the read-only nature, output contents, and audit trail. It could mention log size limits or pagination, but for a convenience tool it is adequate.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description mentions 'default Vercel' and 'mapped provider,' which aligns with the schema's default for provider. However, it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it finds the latest deployment for the mapped provider and fetches its logs, returning status and logs. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_app_logs, making the purpose explicit and differentiating.

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

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

The description labels the tool as 'Convenience' but does not specify when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. It implies a quick shortcut but lacks explicit guidance on context or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only ('reads only, audited'), re-evaluates reality to avoid phantom done marks, and is resumable across sessions. This provides complete transparency about its non-destructive nature and how it verifies completion.

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

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

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence covers the primary purpose; the second adds behavioral context. All information is relevant and front-loaded.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly explains what the tool returns (per-step status and next action). It also addresses state management (resumable, re-evaluation) and safety (read-only, audited), making it fully self-contained for a single-parameter tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema already provides (plan_id described as a launch plan ID). No additional semantics or usage details for the parameter.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool loads a launch plan and reports per-step status (done/pending/blocked-on-approval/failed) plus the next action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_launch or preflight_launch by focusing on post-launch status tracking.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as verify_launch or preflight_launch. The context of resumable sessions is provided, but usage context is only implied (e.g., after creating a launch plan).

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

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

With no annotations, the description indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation by stating it 'returns' data. It does not contradict any assumed behavior, though it could explicitly mention idempotency or safety.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the key usage instruction. It packs extensive information into a single paragraph without redundancy, though could be slightly more structured.

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

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

Given no output schema and many sibling tools, the description fully explains what the tool returns and its role as the starting point. It covers all essential aspects for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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

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

Schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the recommended use of `environment` and the behavior when omitted (returns all environments).

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as a comprehensive context retriever for a project, listing specific data categories (GitHub, Vercel, Supabase, Stripe, etc.) and emphasizing it as the first tool to call. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are more specific actions.

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

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

Explicitly states it should be called first, recommends passing an environment to focus on one (or omitting for all environments). This provides clear when-to-use guidance and parameterization advice.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if mapping not found), side effects, or authentication requirements.

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

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

Single sentence with no filler, but under-specified. Could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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

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

Lacks return format description, error conditions, and dependency details. Given no output schema or annotations, the description should compensate but does not.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet description adds no meaning to parameters. It mentions 'environment' but not 'project' or 'provider' values beyond what is in the enum.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('concrete provider resource mapped to a given environment'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_provider_mappings' (which lists all) and 'map_provider_resource' (which creates a mapping).

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

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies a single mapping retrieval, but does not differentiate from alternatives or mention prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('summarize') but does not explain the scope of 'local audit entries', whether it modifies data, or how 'DashClaw correlation fields' affect behavior. This leaves the agent with limited behavioral insight.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, and it efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain how parameters affect results, what the output format is, or what 'local audit entries' refers to, leaving the agent underinformed.

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

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

The schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about them. The agent can only infer meaning from names and enum values, which is insufficient for correct use.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool summarizes recent local audit entries with DashClaw correlation fields, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar 'list_audit_log' or 'export_audit_log' siblings, so it misses the top score.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_audit_log' or 'dashclaw_record'. The description lacks context on 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It states that every provider action is logged, implying comprehensiveness, but it does not disclose traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'recent' means. 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.

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

The description is a single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and available filters. There is no wordiness or irrelevant 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.

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

Given the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It does not explain what 'recent' means, whether there is a default limit, or how entries are ordered. More context would improve usability.

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

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

The description adds meaning to three parameters (project, environment, provider) by stating they are filters, but it fails to mention the 'limit' parameter entirely. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists audit entries and mentions that all provider actions are logged, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_audit_log', which likely exports instead of listing.

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

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

The description implies usage by stating you can filter by project, environment, and provider, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to export rather than list. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that secrets are never returned (only env var names), which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other aspects like ordering, empty results, or potential performance impacts.

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

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

Two sentences, 14 words, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value; no extraneous information.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional enum parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main action and a key behavioral detail. However, it omits return structure and parameter guidance, which would be helpful for an agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions on parameters), and the tool description does not explain the 'provider' parameter. The agent gets no help on how to use the filter, such as default behavior or the effect of omitting it.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists provider connections, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_connection or list_projects, and adds a safety note about secrets.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_provider_mappings or create_connection. The description implies usage for retrieving connections but lacks comparisons or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states a simple list operation, but does not disclose side effects, authentication, or return format. Acceptable for a basic read tool.

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

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

Single sentence with no redundancy. Front-loaded with verb and resource.

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

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

For a simple listing tool, the description adequately covers its purpose. Could benefit from hinting at what an environment is, but not essential.

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

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by linking 'project' to the tool purpose. However, it lacks detail on parameter format or constraints beyond the schema.

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

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

The description explicitly states the action (list) and resource (environments for a project). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling 'add_environment'.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is too brief to mention exclusions or context.

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

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

No annotations provided; the description lacks behavioral details such as default filtering (e.g., does it return all statuses? only pending?), pagination, or ordering. It only states the basic action without explaining behavior beyond the obvious.

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