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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'retrieves' tasks, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, or affects server state. The description mentions the return format but lacks details about pagination, error handling, or what happens when no tasks match. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. The opening sentence efficiently states the core purpose. While the parameter documentation is thorough, it's appropriately detailed given the 0% schema coverage. Some minor verbosity exists in the Returns section, but overall it's front-loaded and efficient.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It thoroughly documents parameters but lacks behavioral context about authentication, rate limits, or error conditions. The return format is described but without schema details. For a read operation with filtering/sorting capabilities, more context about constraints and behavior would be needed for full completeness.

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

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

The description provides detailed parameter documentation in the Args section, explaining each parameter's purpose and default values. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this documentation fully compensates by adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It clarifies that 'status' filters tasks, 'sort' orders by last update time, and 'number' limits results. However, it doesn't explain the 'ctx' parameter's purpose, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 ('retrieves') and resource ('list of tasks being managed by the server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_task_result' (which retrieves specific task results) and 'list_agents' (which deals with agents rather than tasks). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'get_task_result' for task details, or how it relates to other task management operations. The only implicit usage is for listing tasks, but there's no explicit context about prerequisites, timing, or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it fetches 'current state and any results', mentions the return structure (dictionary with status, result message, data), and specifies error behavior ('error if the task ID is not found'). It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, but provides solid 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?

Perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement, usage context, parameter explanations, and return description in four concise paragraphs. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information 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?

For a single-parameter read operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains purpose, usage, parameters, and return structure. The only minor gap is lack of format details for 'task_id' and explicit mention of whether this is idempotent or has side effects.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining 'task_id' as 'The unique identifier of the task to retrieve' and linking it to 'send_message'. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints like UUID patterns.

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 ('retrieves the result or status') and resource ('previously created task'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_task_list' (which lists tasks) and 'send_message' (which creates tasks). The mention of using 'task_id returned by send_message' further clarifies its relationship to other tools.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Using the task_id returned by send_message') and provides a clear alternative scenario ('if the task ID is not found'). This gives the agent precise guidance on prerequisites and error conditions compared to other tools like 'list_agents' or 'register_agent'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Lists'), returns structured data (list of dictionaries with URL and AgentCard), and includes a dummy parameter for compatibility. However, it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the explanation of the dummy parameter could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete: it explains the purpose, parameter usage, and return format. However, it could improve by addressing potential edge cases or linking to sibling tools for broader context.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'dummy' as a compatibility requirement to pass an empty string. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type information, though it doesn't cover all possible parameter nuances.

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 ('Lists all A2A agents') and resource ('currently registered with the bridge server'), distinguishing it from siblings like register_agent (creation) or unregister_agent (deletion). It explicitly mentions what is returned (URL and AgentCard information), making the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description implies usage by stating it returns all registered agents, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_task_list or send_message. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation ('stores it in the server's list') and involves fetching from a URL, indicating network activity. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (beyond a vague reference), authentication needs, rate limits, or idempotency. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves 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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by explanatory details and separate sections for Args and Returns. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and no output schema, though the Returns section could be more concise. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with network operations), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and return value structure, but lacks details on error handling, side effects, or interaction with siblings. For a registration tool in an A2A system, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage (no titles or descriptions for parameters), so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for the single parameter 'url', explaining it's 'the base URL of the A2A agent to register' and should point to where the agent's card can be resolved. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type, though it doesn't cover format examples or validation rules.

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: 'Registers an Agent-to-Agent (A2A) agent with the bridge server' and explains it fetches and stores agent information. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_agents' (which likely lists registered agents) and 'unregister_agent' (which removes them), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The verb 'registers' is specific and the resource 'agent' is well-defined.

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 mentioning that it makes the agent 'available for communication,' suggesting it's for setting up A2A interactions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_message' (which might require a registered agent) or 'unregister_agent,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is contextual but lacks explicit 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses key behavioral traits: the function returns quickly, details timing conditions (5-second threshold for immediate vs. pending results), and explains background fetching and the need to use 'get_task_result' for completion checks. It doesn't cover aspects like error handling or rate limits, but provides substantial operational context.

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

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

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by bullet points for behavioral details and structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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

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

Given the complexity of initiating tasks with agents, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return behavior comprehensively. However, it lacks details on error cases or authentication needs, which could be relevant for a tool interacting with external agents.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, which it does effectively. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter: 'agent_url' as the URL of a registered A2A agent, 'message' as the text to send, and 'session_id' as an optional identifier for conversation context. This clarifies the purpose and usage of all parameters, though it doesn't detail format 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 specific action ('sends a message to an agent') and the outcome ('returns the task status'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_task_result' or 'list_agents'. It explicitly mentions initiating a task with an agent, which clarifies the operational context beyond just sending a message.

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 on when to use this tool: to send a message to an agent and initiate a task. It explicitly mentions using 'get_task_result' as an alternative for checking completion if a 'pending' status is returned, which helps differentiate from siblings. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or compare with other tools like 'register_agent'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a destructive operation (removes agent and tasks), requires a specific URL parameter, returns confirmation data including removed task count, and returns errors for non-existent agents. It doesn't mention authentication needs or rate limits, but covers the core mutation behavior adequately.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds critical scope information, then clearly organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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

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

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining parameters, behavior, and return format. It could be more complete by explicitly stating this is irreversible or mentioning prerequisites (like needing the agent to be registered first), but covers the essential context given the complexity.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'url' parameter's purpose ('URL of the agent to unregister') and the 'ctx' parameter's role ('MCP context for logging'). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema that only shows 'url' as a required string.

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 ('unregisters') and resource ('A2A agent from the bridge server'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'register_agent' (opposite action) and 'list_agents' (read-only). The second sentence adds important scope about removing associated tasks, further differentiating it from other tools.

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

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

The description implies usage context through the mention of removing associated tasks, suggesting this should be used when completely removing an agent and its tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'list_agents' for checking registration status first.

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