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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as token expiration, rate limits, authentication requirements (e.g., credentials stored elsewhere), side effects (e.g., session creation), or error handling. This is inadequate for an authentication tool where such details are critical.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Authenticate with Signavio API') and outcome ('get a token'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 of authentication (critical for API access) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on token usage, expiration, error cases, and how it integrates with sibling tools. For a foundational tool with no structured support, more context is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate, but it implies authentication might involve implicit parameters (e.g., stored credentials), though not explicitly stated. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 ('Authenticate with Signavio API') and outcome ('get a token'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform CRUD operations on resources like models, folders, and dictionary entries. However, it doesn't explicitly mention authentication method (e.g., credentials) or differentiate from potential alternative auth mechanisms.

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. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., must be called before other operations), frequency (e.g., token expiration), or context (e.g., required for all other Signavio tools). The description implies authentication is needed but lacks explicit usage rules.

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 states 'Create' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, error conditions, or the response format. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.

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

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 action and target. It's appropriately front-loaded and doesn't include unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, or what to expect upon success (e.g., returns a category ID). While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially compared to siblings that involve mutations like signavio_delete_dictionary_entry.

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 all parameters documented in the schema (name, color, order, parentCategory). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the purpose of 'order' in display or how 'parentCategory' structures hierarchies. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate with any additional semantic 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new dictionary category'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like signavio_get_dictionary_categories (read vs. write) and signavio_update_dictionary_entry (update vs. create), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description is specific but could be more precise about what a 'dictionary category' entails in this 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when creation is appropriate (e.g., for organizing dictionary entries), or refer to related tools like signavio_get_dictionary_categories for viewing existing categories. Usage is implied only by the verb 'Create,' leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names alone.

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 states the tool creates something, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what the response might look like (e.g., success confirmation or entry ID). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error cases, or return values, and it lacks context about the Signavio platform. Given the complexity of creating a resource with multiple parameters, more detail is needed for 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, so parameters like 'title' and 'category' are well-documented there. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the purpose of 'attachments' or constraints on 'category' values. This meets 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 'Create a new dictionary entry' clearly states the action (create) and resource (dictionary entry), which is adequate. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'signavio_create_dictionary_category' beyond the resource type, nor does it specify what a 'dictionary entry' represents in the Signavio context, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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 'signavio_update_dictionary_entry' or 'signavio_search_dictionary'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing authentication or an existing category) or typical use cases, offering minimal direction 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new folder', implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns folder ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary context for effective use. It's front-loaded but incomplete.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or dependencies. For a folder creation tool in a modeling environment, more context is needed to guide the agent 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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'parentId'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 the action ('Create') and resource ('folder'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what type of folder (e.g., in Signavio's modeling environment) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'signavio_create_dictionary_category' or 'signavio_create_model', which also create resources. The purpose is clear but generic.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context (e.g., after getting root folders), or exclusions (e.g., not for creating models). The description offers no usage context, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns model ID). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Create a new model/diagram' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place 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?

For a creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying creation involves a 'model/diagram', which is already clear from the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics.

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') and resource ('new model/diagram'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'signavio_create_folder' or 'signavio_create_dictionary_category' beyond the resource type, missing explicit 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authentication), context for creation, or comparison with similar tools like 'signavio_update_model' or 'signavio_create_folder', leaving usage unclear.

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 states 'Delete' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action and resource. There is no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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

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

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as authentication requirements, deletion consequences, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about usage and outcomes.

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 the single parameter 'entryId' documented as 'The dictionary entry ID'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description 'Delete a dictionary entry' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('dictionary entry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'signavio_delete_folder' or 'signavio_update_dictionary_entry' beyond the resource type, missing explicit 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when deletion is appropriate versus updating, or refer to sibling tools like 'signavio_update_dictionary_entry' 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'permanently delete,' which implies destructive and irreversible behavior, but lacks details on permissions required, error conditions (e.g., if the folder doesn't exist), side effects, or response format. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste: 'Permanently delete a folder and all its contents.' It efficiently conveys the core action and scope without unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand 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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, return values, or safety warnings. For a high-stakes deletion tool, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it correctly and safely.

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 the single parameter 'folderId' documented as 'The folder ID to delete.' The description does not add further semantic context beyond implying the folder must exist and contain items. Since schema coverage is high and there's only one parameter, the baseline is elevated, and the description's implication of content deletion adds slight value.

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 ('permanently delete') and the target ('a folder and all its contents'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like signavio_delete_dictionary_entry (which deletes dictionary entries) and signavio_move_folder (which moves rather than deletes). It uses specific, unambiguous language that directly communicates the tool's function.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete root folders), or comparisons to siblings like signavio_move_folder for relocation instead of deletion. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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 lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or how it handles errors. The description only states the basic function without operational context.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential format details 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool operates in practice.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description lists formats but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's enum and descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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') and resource ('a model'), specifying the available formats. It distinguishes from siblings like signavio_get_model by focusing on export rather than retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare with similar tools like signavio_get_model, or specify use cases for different formats.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get all dictionary categories' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted text. It efficiently communicates the essential action, though this brevity comes at the cost 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with 2 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'dictionary categories' are in this context, what format the results take, or any prerequisites. For a retrieval tool in a complex system like Signavio, more context 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 100%, with both parameters ('allCategories', 'showHidden') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data 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 'Get all dictionary categories' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('dictionary categories'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'signavio_get_dictionary_category' (singular vs. plural), which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'signavio_get_dictionary_category' (singular) and 'signavio_search_dictionary', there's no indication of whether this tool is for bulk retrieval, filtering, or other specific use 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implies a read operation, but lacks details on authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential API complexities.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'dictionary category' entails in this context, the return format, or error scenarios. For a tool in a suite with authentication and complex operations, more context is needed for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'categoryId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying retrieval by ID, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 'dictionary category by ID', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'signavio_get_dictionary_categories' (plural), which retrieves multiple categories versus this tool's single-category focus.

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. For example, it doesn't mention using 'signavio_get_dictionary_categories' for listing categories or 'signavio_search_dictionary' for finding categories by criteria other than ID, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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 states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or add details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get a specific dictionary entry by ID'), making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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

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

Given the complexity of a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., entry details like name, definition, or metadata), potential errors, or how it fits into the broader context of dictionary management with siblings like 'signavio_update_dictionary_entry'. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for reliable 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, with the parameter 'entryId' clearly documented as 'The dictionary entry ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers the parameter semantics.

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 the resource 'dictionary entry by ID', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'signavio_get_dictionary_category' or 'signavio_get_model', which also retrieve specific resources by ID, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this exact tool.

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. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for retrieving a single entry after searching with 'signavio_search_dictionary' or as a follow-up to listing entries, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication. The description only states what it does, not when 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets folder contents but doesn't describe what 'contents' includes (e.g., files, subfolders, metadata), whether it's paginated, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Get contents of a specific folder by ID') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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 complexity of a folder lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'contents' means, the return format, error conditions, or dependencies like authentication. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the folderId parameter documented as 'The folder ID (e.g., from directory endpoint)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get contents') and resource ('of a specific folder by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like signavio_get_root_folders (which presumably gets root-level folders) or signavio_search (which might search across folders), leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this specific folder lookup.

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., authentication, folder existence), compare it to signavio_get_root_folders for root-level access, or indicate when signavio_search might be better for broader queries. Without such context, agents must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get model metadata by ID' but doesn't clarify what 'metadata' includes, whether authentication is required (implied by sibling 'signavio_authenticate'), or any rate limits or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

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: 'Get model metadata by ID'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'metadata' entails (e.g., fields returned), authentication requirements, or error handling. For a tool in a suite with authentication and complex operations, this minimal description leaves too much unspecified for reliable agent 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, with 'modelId' clearly documented as 'The model ID'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't compensate with extra context 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 the resource 'model metadata by ID', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'signavio_get_model_revisions' or 'signavio_get_folder_contents', which also retrieve metadata but for different resources.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'signavio_search' or 'signavio_get_model_revisions', there's no indication of when this specific metadata retrieval is preferred, leaving the agent to guess based on context alone.

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 states 'Get all revisions' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond basic functionality.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with pagination parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or behavioral nuances like how 'limit' and 'offset' function together, leaving the agent with incomplete context for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (modelId, limit, offset). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval of revisions, which aligns with the schema but does not compensate for or enhance parameter understanding. This meets 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 'Get all revisions of a model' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('revisions of a model'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'signavio_get_model' (which likely retrieves a single model) or 'signavio_search' (which might find models), leaving room for ambiguity in distinguishing its specific scope.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare to similar tools like 'signavio_get_model' for retrieving a single model, or specify contexts where fetching revisions is appropriate, offering minimal usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get workspace root folders') followed by specific examples in parentheses. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and the description provides minimal behavioral context, this is incomplete for effective use. While the purpose is clear, the agent lacks information about what the response contains, error handling, or operational constraints. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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

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

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 the resource 'workspace root folders', listing specific examples (Shared Documents, My Documents, Trash, Dictionary). It distinguishes itself from siblings like signavio_get_folder_contents by focusing on root-level folders rather than contents of a specific folder. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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

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

The description implies usage for retrieving root-level folders, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like signavio_get_folder_contents or signavio_search. It provides context by naming specific root folders, but lacks explicit guidance on 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 moving to 'trash' but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled (e.g., invalid IDs). The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits like side effects or response format.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('move a folder') and specifies destinations ('new parent or to trash'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or what 'trash' entails, and doesn't explain return values. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies data.

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 both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'parentId' can be set to trash, but this is not detailed. Baseline is 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

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 ('move') and resource ('folder'), specifying the action of relocating a folder to a new parent or to trash. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'signavio_create_folder' or 'signavio_delete_folder' by focusing on relocation rather than creation or deletion, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'signavio_move_model' which handles a similar action for models.

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., authentication), exclusions (e.g., cannot move to non-existent parent), or compare to siblings like 'signavio_update_folder' for other modifications. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('move') but doesn't describe effects (e.g., whether it's destructive, requires permissions, or has side effects like updating references). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Move a model to a different folder'). It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct 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 both parameters (modelId and parentId) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying the tool moves a model to a folder. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't 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 ('move') and the resource ('a model'), specifying the destination ('to a different folder'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like signavio_move_folder by focusing on models rather than folders, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it (e.g., for moving folders instead), or how it relates to siblings like signavio_move_folder. The description is purely functional without contextual usage 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Publish') but doesn't clarify critical traits: whether this is a mutation (likely yes, but unstated), what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the output looks like. For a tool that presumably changes state, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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

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 for an 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 complexity of a publishing operation (likely a state-changing action), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'publish' entails (e.g., making models public, versioning), potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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, fully documenting the single parameter 'modelIds' as an array of IDs in format /model/{id}. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying multiple models can be published at once ('one or more models'), which is already evident from the array type. This meets 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 action ('Publish') and the target ('one or more models to Process Collaboration Hub'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this publishing operation from other model-related operations like signavio_export_model or signavio_update_model, which could involve similar resources but different 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., models must exist, authentication required), exclusions (e.g., cannot publish drafts), or compare to siblings like signavio_export_model (which might export without publishing). This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.

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 states the search is 'full-text' but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema's offset/limit, or what the search results look like. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, 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. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or behavioral constraints. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'full-text' search, which doesn't clarify parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 ('Perform a full-text search') and scope ('across all content types'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'signavio_search_dictionary', which appears to be a more specialized search variant, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'signavio_search_dictionary' or clarify scenarios where this general search is preferred over more specific operations, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., list of entries, metadata), pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit but not explained), error conditions, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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—a single, clear phrase—with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools (e.g., vs. 'signavio_search'). For a search tool in a rich API context, more contextual information is needed to guide effective use.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a search function, which the schema already covers with the 'query' parameter. This meets 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 'Search for dictionary entries' clearly states the action (search) and target resource (dictionary entries), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'dictionary entries' contain or how this differs from the generic 'signavio_search' sibling tool, making it somewhat vague.

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 'signavio_search' or 'signavio_get_dictionary_entry'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent with no usage direction 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (entryId, title, category, description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. 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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing dictionary entry'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'signavio_update_model' or 'signavio_update_folder', which follow the same pattern for different resources, so it misses full differentiation.

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

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 'signavio_create_dictionary_entry' or 'signavio_delete_dictionary_entry'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing entry ID) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs updates (mutations) but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens if only folderId is provided. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. The context signals indicate this tool modifies data, yet the description provides minimal operational 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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain that name and description are optional updates). This meets 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('rename', 'update') and resource ('folder'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like signavio_move_folder or signavio_create_folder, which also manipulate folders.

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., authentication), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like signavio_move_folder or signavio_create_folder.

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 but only states the basic action without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the update is destructive to previous revisions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 of updating a model with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on behavioral context, error handling, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely and 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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying revision creation, which is already suggested by parameter names like 'comment'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics effectively.

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 a model') and method ('by creating a new revision'), which distinguishes it from simple edits. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'signavio_create_model' or 'signavio_publish_model', leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 'signavio_create_model' for initial creation or 'signavio_publish_model' for finalization. The description implies revision creation but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, such as requiring an existing model.

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