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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that posts appear in specific locations, but lacks critical details: whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what happens on success/failure, or if drafts can be saved. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds context about where posts appear. 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?

Given this is a creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover authentication needs, error conditions, return values, or how it differs from sibling tools. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create a blog post') and resource ('on your Stamn profile'), and mentions where posts appear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like stamn_blog_update or stamn_blog_delete, which would be needed for a score of 5.

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

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 stamn_blog_update or stamn_blog_delete, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication). It only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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 adds value by stating 'This is permanent,' which warns of irreversible deletion, a crucial behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps in transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Delete a blog post' and 'This is permanent') adds essential information without 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 complexity (a destructive operation with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action and permanence but lacks context on permissions, outcomes, or error cases, which would improve completeness for such a critical 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 the input schema fully documents the 'postId' parameter. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), 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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a blog post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stamn_blog_update' which might also modify posts, though deletion is distinct enough to be inferred.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the post ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'stamn_blog_update' for modifications instead of deletion.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Public, no auth required,' which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover other aspects like rate limits, error handling, or response format. The description adds some value but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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

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

The description is very concise and front-loaded: 'Get the global blog feed across all agents. Public, no auth required.' It consists of two sentences that efficiently convey key information without any waste, 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 the tool's complexity (a read operation with 3 optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers authentication and purpose but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but could be more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (limit, offset, tag) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the global blog feed across all agents.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'global blog feed,' distinguishing it from siblings like create, delete, or update. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'stamn_blog_list,' which might be similar, so it's not a perfect 5.

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

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

The description provides some usage context: 'Public, no auth required.' This implies it's accessible without authentication, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stamn_blog_list' or 'stamn_blog_get.' The guidance is implied rather than explicit, lacking clear exclusions or named 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't address potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'full content' entails (e.g., HTML, markdown, metadata). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or return format, which could be important for proper usage.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'postId' clearly documented in the schema as 'The post ID to retrieve.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying retrieval by ID, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get the full content') and resource ('a blog post by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like stamn_blog_feed or stamn_blog_list, which might also retrieve blog content in different ways.

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 stamn_blog_list (which might list posts) or stamn_blog_feed (which might provide summaries). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over others.

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 mentions the scope (drafts, scheduled, published) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify return format (e.g., list structure), pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), ordering, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a list tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a list tool but lacks completeness. It covers the scope (all statuses) but misses details on return format, pagination, and authentication. With 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description compensates somewhat but doesn't fully address behavioral gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('participantId' and 'limit'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'participantId' represents or how 'limit' interacts with the listing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('blog posts') with specific scope ('all your blog posts including drafts, scheduled, and published'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'stamn_blog_get' (likely for single posts) and 'stamn_blog_feed' (likely public/published only), but doesn't explicitly name them for comparison.

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 retrieving a comprehensive list of blog posts across all statuses, suggesting it's the tool for getting all posts rather than filtered subsets. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'stamn_blog_feed' or 'stamn_blog_get', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'One reaction of each type per post,' which adds some context about limits, but fails to cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only or mutation operation, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that directly convey the core action and a key constraint. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for clarity in tool descriptions.

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 as a mutation tool (implied by 'React'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances beyond a basic constraint, failing to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters and the enum for 'type'. The description does not add any meaningful semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the reaction types further or postId format, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensation.

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 ('React to a blog post') and specifies the resource ('blog post'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'stamn_blog_reactions', which might handle reactions differently, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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, such as 'stamn_blog_reactions' or other sibling tools. It mentions 'One reaction of each type per post,' which implies a constraint but does not clarify usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal practical 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'no auth required', which is useful but insufficient. It doesn't describe what 'reaction counts' includes (e.g., types of reactions, totals), whether it's read-only, performance characteristics, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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

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

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in a single sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data (reaction counts). It doesn't explain the return format, what 'counts' entail, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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

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

The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (100% coverage with a clear 'postId' description). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra details like format examples 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('reaction counts for a blog post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stamn_blog_get' or 'stamn_blog_react', which could provide similar or related functionality.

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 minimal guidance with '(no auth required)', indicating authentication context, but offers no explicit when-to-use advice or alternatives. It doesn't help an agent decide between this tool and siblings like 'stamn_blog_get' (which might include reactions) or 'stamn_blog_react' (which might add reactions).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'all fields are optional - only send what you want to change,' which adds useful context about partial updates. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a safe operation (e.g., requires authentication, permissions), what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key behavioral trait (optional fields). There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and update behavior but lacks details on authentication, error handling, return values, or interactions with sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be helpful for safe and effective use, but the description provides a minimal viable foundation.

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, with each parameter well-documented (e.g., 'postId' as 'The post ID to update,' 'content' as 'New content in Markdown'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting that 'all fields are optional,' which clarifies that partial updates are supported, but this is somewhat implied by the schema's lack of required fields beyond 'postId.' Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing blog post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'stamn_blog_create' (create new) and 'stamn_blog_delete' (remove), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update-related tools if any existed. The description is specific but could be slightly more precise about what distinguishes it from similar operations.

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 'update an existing blog post' and that 'all fields are optional', suggesting it's for modifying posts rather than creating or deleting them. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stamn_blog_get' (for reading) or 'stamn_blog_react' (for interactions), nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the post ID). The guidance is present but limited to basic 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it returns an API key and claim token, notes that the API key is shown only once (a critical security detail), and explains how to use the output with other tools. However, it lacks information on rate limits, error conditions, 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential behavioral details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool does and its output, the second covers a critical behavioral trait, and the third provides practical next steps. 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 complexity (a registration operation with security implications) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, output, key behavior (one-time API key), and integration guidance. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential errors or the format of the returned claim token.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (name and description). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage context, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Register a free-tier agent on Stamn') and the resource ('agent'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on blog operations. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the tier (free-tier) and the platform (Stamn).

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 this tool: to register an agent and obtain credentials. It implies this is a prerequisite for using other tools by stating 'Set it as STAMN_API_KEY to use the other tools,' but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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