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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It mentions '[application delivery]' as context but doesn't explain whether this is a mutating operation, its side effects (e.g., if it triggers deployments), permission requirements, or error handling. 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, consisting of a single phrase. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no separation of purpose from context) and could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness, as it currently under-specifies key details.

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 mutating operation (adding hosts to a deploy group) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like mutation effects, return values, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full 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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in Chinese (e.g., '组织ID' for organizationId). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced 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 states the action ('Add host list') and target ('to deploy group'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'add' entails (e.g., appending vs. replacing) and doesn't distinguish it from the sibling tool 'add_host_list_to_host_group', leaving ambiguity about when to use one over the other.

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 'add_host_list_to_host_group' or other deployment-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical scenarios for adding hosts to a deploy group.

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 'Add' which implies a write/mutation operation, but provides no information about permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if hosts already exist in the group, error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at just 6 words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, the bracketed '[application delivery]' adds minimal value and could be considered wasted space that could have been used for more useful information.

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

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

For a mutation tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after the operation, what success/failure looks like, or any side effects. The description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and outcomes given 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Add host list') and target resource ('to host group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'add_host_list_to_deploy_group' by specifying 'host group' rather than 'deploy group'. However, it doesn't fully differentiate beyond the resource name difference.

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, constraints, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'add_host_list_to_deploy_group'. The only contextual hint is the bracketed '[application delivery]' which is too vague to be actionable.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool cancels a change request, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if this is reversible, requires permissions, affects related resources, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with a single phrase, 'Cancel a change request', and includes a bracketed context '[application delivery]' that efficiently sets the domain. There is no wasted verbiage, making it front-loaded and easy to parse, 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?

Given the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the outcome of cancellation, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'close_change_request'. For a mutation tool in a rich context, more detail 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 parameters 'organizationId', 'appName', and 'sn' documented in Chinese. The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters, such as format examples or relationships. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 'Cancel a change request' clearly states the action (cancel) and resource (change request), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'cancel' entails (e.g., aborting, marking as obsolete) and doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'close_change_request', making it vague in comparison.

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

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'close_change_request' or other change request-related tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, conditions for cancellation, or what happens after cancellation, leaving the agent without usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if closing is reversible, requires permissions, affects related entities, or has side effects—critical 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?

Extremely concise with two bracketed words and a clear verb-noun phrase. Every element adds value: domain context and core action, 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?

Inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. The description lacks behavioral transparency, usage context, and outcome details, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying 'sn' identifies the change request, aligning with 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 ('Close') and resource ('a change request'), with the bracketed context '[application delivery]' providing domain specificity. It distinguishes from sibling 'cancel_change_request' by implying a different state transition, though not explicitly.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_change_request' or other change request operations. The description assumes context but doesn't provide usage rules or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Query code to compare content' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is (e.g., diff), or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand tool behavior.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with a prefix, which is concise but not particularly informative. It could be more detailed without being overly long.

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

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

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to handle different reference types, or any constraints (e.g., repository access).

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%, meaning each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description 'Query code to compare content' along with the input schema (from/to parameters accepting commit SHA, branch, or tag names) clearly indicates the tool compares two code references. However, it could explicitly state that it compares commits, branches, or tags.

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 like get_file_blobs or list_branches. The description does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new application', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected output format. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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

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

The description is very brief—just two phrases: '[application delivery] Create a new application'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, the bracketed context hint feels tacked-on and could be integrated more smoothly, slightly reducing 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 complexity of creating an application (a mutation with 6 parameters, 2 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'application' entails, the implications of creation, error handling, or return values. The bracketed hint adds minimal context, leaving the agent with inadequate information for reliable tool invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'organizationId' as '组织id', 'name' as '应用名'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details in the description.

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

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

The description states the action ('Create') and resource ('new application'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_app_orchestration' or 'create_app_tag', nor does it specify what an 'application' means in this context beyond the bracketed hint '[application delivery]'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the domain or differentiation from similar creation 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'create_app_orchestration' or 'update_application', there's no indication of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The bracketed '[application delivery]' hints at a context but is too vague to serve as actionable usage guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected output looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at just two bracketed words plus the main statement. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns 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?

For a creation tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'application orchestration' is, what happens after creation, error conditions, or relationship to other resources. The high parameter count and mutation nature demand more contextual information than provided.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, though the description contributes nothing extra about parameter meaning or usage.

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 'Create an application orchestration' which clearly indicates a creation action on an application orchestration resource. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'application orchestration' entails and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_application' or 'create_appstack_change_request' which also create related resources. The bracketed '[application delivery]' adds some context but remains general.

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 many sibling tools that create various resources (applications, change requests, pipelines, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific orchestration creation is appropriate versus other creation tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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. 'Create a change request' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether this triggers workflows or approvals, what happens to existing resources, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a creation tool with 9 parameters and no 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 extremely concise at just two words plus a bracketed context. While this represents efficient communication, it borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity. The front-loaded '[application delivery]' context is helpful, but the core description 'Create a change request' is too minimal to be truly helpful for agent decision-making.

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 (9 parameters, 7 required, mutation operation), absence of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a successful creation returns, what validation occurs, or how this tool fits within the broader change management workflow. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on the description.

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 no parameter-specific information beyond the tool's purpose. However, with 100% schema description coverage (all 9 parameters have descriptions in Chinese), the schema carries the heavy lifting. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description adds no additional semantic context about how parameters relate to each other or their collective purpose.

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 change request' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_appstack_change_request'. It adds minimal value by specifying '[application delivery]' as a domain context, but fails to clearly articulate what a 'change request' entails or what resource it creates. Compared to siblings like 'create_change_request' and 'create_change_order', it doesn't distinguish its specific purpose within the change management system.

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 multiple sibling tools for creating various entities (change requests, change orders, applications, branches, etc.), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or differentiation from similar tools like 'create_change_request'. The agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool over others.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, what the response contains, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at just 4 words plus a bracketed context hint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the bracketed '[application delivery]' feels somewhat cryptic and doesn't clearly earn its place in such a minimal description. Overall it's efficient but could be more informative.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what gets returned, error conditions, or how this tool fits within the broader application tag management workflow. Given the complexity of creating resources in what appears to be a DevOps/application delivery system, 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 all three parameters clearly documented in the schema (organizationId, name, color with color value examples). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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

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

The description states 'Create an application tag' which clearly indicates a creation action on a specific resource (application tag). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_app_tag' or 'search_app_tags' beyond the basic verb. The bracketed '[application delivery]' provides some context but doesn't fully specify the tool's unique purpose within the sibling set.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an organization context), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update_app_tag' or 'search_app_tags'. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage information.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It does not mention that the tool uses a source branch (ref with default 'master'), whether it fails if branch exists, or any side effects. The description is too minimal 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a category tag. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every part contributes to understanding the basic purpose.

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

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

For a creation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description lacks essential context such as success indicators, error conditions, or behavioral expectations. It fails to prepare the agent for proper use.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already has detailed descriptions for parameters (e.g., ref default, repositoryId format). The tool description adds no additional value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 branch in a Codeup repository). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_branch, get_branch, and list_branches by specifying creation.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for creating a repository vs. branch). No mention of prerequisites such as required permissions or repository existence.

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. '创建部署单' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this triggers immediate deployment, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or side effects. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful 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 extremely concise ('[application delivery] 创建部署单') but arguably under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While front-loaded, it lacks necessary detail for a tool with complex parameters and no annotations. The single phrase doesn't earn its place by providing sufficient context.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or the operational impact of creating a change order. For a mutation tool in a crowded sibling space, this minimal description leaves critical gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 67%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the purpose of organizationId, appName, or the changeOrder object structure. With 3 parameters and nested objects, the description fails to compensate for the 33% coverage gap, maintaining the baseline 3.

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 '[application delivery] 创建部署单' clearly states the action ('创建' meaning 'create') and resource ('部署单' meaning 'change order/deployment order') in the context of application delivery. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_change_request' by specifying deployment orders rather than change requests, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'create_change_request', 'create_application', and various deployment-related tools, there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for creating change orders.

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 change request' but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected output format. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, 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 extremely concise with just two parts: a domain context '[Code Management]' and the core action 'Create a new change request'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient 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 (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'change request' entails in this system, how it differs from similar tools, or what the creation process involves. For a tool with many parameters and no structured behavioral hints, 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 11 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('change request') with the context '[Code Management]', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_change_order' or 'create_appstack_change_request', which likely serve similar but distinct purposes in the same domain.

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 'create_change_order' and 'create_appstack_change_request' present, there's no indication of the specific scenarios, prerequisites, or differences between these creation tools, leaving the agent without usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'creates' (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't mention required permissions, whether comments are editable/deletable, 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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

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

For a mutation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., comment ID returned?), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral 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 already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create a comment') and resource ('on a change request') with a domain context ('[Code Management]'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_commit_comment' by specifying 'change request' rather than 'commit', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_work_item_comment' or other comment 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_commit_comment' or 'create_work_item_comment' is provided. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.

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, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic creation action. There is no mention of authentication requirements, side effects, rate limits, or whether the comment is immediately visible.

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 remarkably concise at 5 words plus a prefix. It front-loads the purpose but could be more structured.

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

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

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created comment object or a success message). Given the simple create action, the description should at least mention the response format.

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

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

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters sufficiently.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create a comment') and the target resource ('on a commit'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_change_request_comment' and 'create_work_item_comment' which operate on different objects.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone.

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

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

The description only states the action 'register actual working hours' without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions, idempotency, or side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is very concise with a single sentence and a category prefix. No redundancy, but it is too brief to be fully informative.

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

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

The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no context about return values, error handling, or workflow integration. It is minimally adequate.

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

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

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states that this tool registers actual working hours, a specific and direct purpose. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like create_estimated_effort or update_effort_record, limiting clarity in 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides a category label but no usage context, 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?

The description is a single phrase with no behavioral details. Since annotations are absent, the description must disclose side effects, required permissions, or constraints, but it does not. The tool creates a resource, but that is implied, not explicit.

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 brief (one short phrase) but under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. It is concise to a fault, lacking necessary detail without earning its place.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema or annotations), the description provides minimal context. It does not explain return behavior, required context, or how it integrates with other tools, making it inadequate.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description adds no information about parameters, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 '登记预计工时' (register estimated hours), which indicates a specific action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_effort_record', and the title is null, making the purpose somewhat vague without 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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_effort_record' or 'list_estimated_efforts', leaving the agent without guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the tool overwrites existing files, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens on error. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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

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

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but arguably too brief for a tool with 7 parameters. It lacks structure or elaboration, making it merely adequate.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not address return values, error handling, or usage constraints, making it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

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

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. However, it adds no additional semantic context beyond what is already in the schema, earning a baseline of 3.

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 the resource 'new file' within a 'Codeup repository'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_file and delete_file, but could be more specific about the 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, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions. For example, it does not clarify that this tool creates a file on a branch with a commit message.

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 this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, the bracketed '[application delivery]' prefix adds minimal value and could be integrated more smoothly.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader system (e.g., relationship to other variable tools). The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between 'displayName' and 'name', or clarify the 'content' array structure). 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 states the action ('Create') and resource ('global variable group'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'create_variable_group' or explain what makes a 'global' variable group different from other variable groups in the system. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity for 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_variable_group' or 'update_global_var'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. Without this context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: automatic retrieval of defaults (e.g., 'Automatically retrieves default service connection IDs'), internal handling of repository logic, and fallback strategies. It lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but covers essential operational traits.

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 sections like 'Built-in Capabilities' and 'Important Guidelines', but it is excessively long and includes redundant details (e.g., repeated IDE detection rules). Some content could be condensed without losing clarity, as not every sentence earns its place efficiently.

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 high complexity (33 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage workflows, parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and integration with sibling tools. It compensates for the lack of structured metadata, providing all necessary context for effective tool invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining parameter priorities (e.g., 'Parameter Priority: 1. USER EXPLICIT...'), detection rules (e.g., 'IDE Detection Rules'), and contextual mappings (e.g., deployment parsing from Chinese phrases). This goes beyond schema documentation, justifying a higher 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 tool's purpose: 'Create a pipeline using structured parameters extracted from user descriptions and environment context.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('pipeline'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing parameter extraction from descriptions and context, unlike generic creation 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It includes detailed workflows (e.g., 'ALWAYS try IDE detection first'), explicit exclusions (e.g., 'DO NOT call list_repositories unless user explicitly asks'), and references to sibling tools like list_repositories and list_service_connections for specific scenarios.

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 action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a mutation (likely, given 'create' in name), what permissions are required, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., returns a run ID). This leaves critical operational 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, but the bracketed '[Pipeline Management]' adds minimal value and could be omitted. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity.

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

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

For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., a run object or status), error conditions, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning 'optional parameters', which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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

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

The description states the action ('Run a pipeline') and mentions optional parameters, but it's vague about what 'run' entails (e.g., triggering execution, creating a run record). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_pipeline_job_run' or 'get_pipeline_run', leaving ambiguity in 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_pipeline_job_run' or 'create_pipeline_from_description'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing pipeline, or exclusions, making it unclear in the broader toolset.

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. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate attempts, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral information.

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 two parts: a bracketed category '[Resource Member Management]' and the core statement 'Create a resource member'. There's no wasted language, though the category label adds minimal value. The structure is front-loaded with the essential action.

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

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

For a creation tool with 5 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'resource member' is, what happens after creation, error conditions, or the relationship between resource types and role names. The schema provides parameter details but the description fails to provide the necessary contextual understanding for effective tool 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 already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Create a resource member' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what a 'resource member' actually is. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_resource_member' and 'update_resource_member', it doesn't clarify what type of resource is being referenced (pipeline or hostGroup) or what 'member' means 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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be used for related operations. The sibling tools include 'list_resource_members' which would logically be used before this one, but this relationship isn't indicated.

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

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

No annotations provided; the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization requirements, or idempotency, leaving the agent underinformed.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, but it lacks substantive content. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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

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

With 8 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. Does not explain parameter relationships, return values, or error handling.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but does not detract.

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

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

Description clearly states 'Create a new sprint' with project management context, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_sprint or delete_sprint.

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 such as create_work_item or create_version. Lacks prerequisites or context for usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts (e.g., duplicate names), or what the response contains. For a creation tool with 8 parameters, this leaves critical gaps.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at just two words plus a bracketed context. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information. While it's under-specified, it's not wordy or poorly structured.

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

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

For a creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a variable group is, when to create one, what the operation returns, or any behavioral considerations. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional 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 already documents all 8 parameters with descriptions in Chinese. The English description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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

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

The description 'Create a variable group' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It adds no specificity about what a variable group is, what resource it creates, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_global_var' or 'update_variable_group'. The bracketed '[application delivery]' provides minimal context but doesn't clarify the action.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_global_var' or 'update_variable_group'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate contexts for creating a variable group versus other variable-related operations.

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 only states 'Create a work item', which implies a write operation but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it triggers notifications), error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with 14 parameters and no annotations, 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 extremely concise with a single phrase, '[Project Management] Create a work item', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it may be overly terse given the tool's complexity, as it omits necessary context that could justify a slightly longer description for 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 complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, relying solely on the schema for parameters. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool operates and integrates with other tools, making it inadequate for the agent's needs.

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 14 parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'Organization ID', 'Work item title'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 by not detracting but also not compensating, as the schema already provides comprehensive details.

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 '[Project Management] Create a work item' states the basic verb ('Create') and resource ('work item') with a domain context hint ('Project Management'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what a 'work item' entails (e.g., task, bug, feature) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_change_request' or 'create_sprint', leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous despite being understandable.

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 many sibling tools (e.g., 'create_change_request', 'create_sprint', 'create_work_item_comment'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on names alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Create a comment' but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or return behavior for a write operation.

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

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

Single sentence with domain tag, efficient and front-loaded. Could be slightly more concise but no waste.

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

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

No output schema, description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created comment or success message). Lacks context for a complete understanding.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool creates a comment for a work item, with a domain tag. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_change_request_comment and list_work_item_comments.

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, no when-not or prerequisites mentioned. Implied usage but not explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence and no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, 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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation, response format). Given the complexity and risk of deletion, more information 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 all three parameters documented in the schema (organizationId, appName, sn). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or enhancing 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 ('Delete') and resource ('an application orchestration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_branch' or 'delete_file', and the bracketed '[application delivery]' prefix adds minor context but isn't fully integrated into the purpose statement.

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. Sibling tools include 'delete_branch', 'delete_file', and others, but the description doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, 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?

No annotations provided; the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like irreversibility, side effects, or failure conditions (e.g., protected branches).

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it could be slightly improved by including key usage context.

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

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

As a destructive operation with no output schema, the description lacks essential context such as whether the deletion is permanent, whether it can delete the default branch, or any rollback options.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for all 3 parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline of 3.

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 'Delete' and the resource 'a branch from a Codeup repository', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_branch or list_branches.

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, or any preconditions like branch protection or default branch restrictions.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the action without mentioning destructive nature, permission requirements, or side effects.

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

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

The description is a single sentence but lacks structure and substance; it is under-developed and not well-organized.

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 5 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or important behavioral details like commit creation.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no extra meaning beyond what's already there. Baseline score of 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (file from a Codeup repository), with a category tag. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_file or update_file.

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, no prerequisites, no error handling or required setup mentioned.

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. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated data. It also doesn't describe the response format or error conditions, leaving 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 very brief—just one sentence with a bracketed prefix—making it efficient and front-loaded. However, it borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity, as it lacks details that would help an agent use it correctly. Every word earns its place, but more content might be warranted.

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 absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'resource member' means in this context, what the deletion entails, or what to expect upon success/failure. For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no structured safety hints, this leaves the agent poorly informed.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'resourceType' explains possible values like 'pipeline' and 'hostGroup'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description states the action ('Delete') and target ('resource member'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it's somewhat vague about what constitutes a 'resource member' and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_app_orchestration' or 'delete_branch' beyond the resource type. The bracketed '[Resource Member Management]' adds some context but doesn't fully clarify the specific domain.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to list resource members first), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete owners), or related tools like 'list_resource_members' or 'update_resource_member' from the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool performs a deletion, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on dependent configurations), error conditions, or response format. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every element (bracketed context, verb, object) earns its place efficiently.

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 (destructive mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or return values, leaving gaps for an AI agent to operate safely. For a deletion tool, this is inadequate despite the concise purpose statement.

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 three parameters documented in the schema (organizationId, appName, variableGroupName). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying these are needed to identify the variable group. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't detract either.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a variable group'), with the bracketed context '[application delivery]' providing domain specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_variable_group' and 'update_variable_group' by the verb, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to identify the variable group first), consequences of deletion, or when to choose deletion over other operations like updating. The description is purely declarative without usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a deployment-related action but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns any output. The vague phrasing fails to compensate for the lack of structured annotations.

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

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

While concise with a single phrase, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It fails to front-load essential information and doesn't use its limited space effectively to clarify purpose or usage, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful summary.

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 5 required parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address the complexity of the action object, potential side effects, or expected outcomes. Given the rich input schema and lack of other structured data, the description should provide more contextual completeness.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 80%, providing a solid baseline. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., organizationId, actionType with enum values). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or usage nuances, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline expectation.

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 '[application delivery] 操作环境部署单' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name 'execute_job_action' in Chinese ('操作环境部署单' translates to 'operate environment deployment order'), providing no specific verb or resource clarification. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'execute_pipeline_job_run' or 'cancel_change_request'.

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. The description offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or distinctions from similar tools (e.g., 'cancel_change_request', 'stop_vm_deploy_order'). This leaves the agent with no 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 for behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('run', 'start') but doesn't specify permissions, side effects, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool, as it lacks details on execution triggers or error handling.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, using two efficient sentences. However, the first sentence includes a bracketed category '[Pipeline Management]' that adds minimal value, slightly reducing 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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what happens after execution, potential errors, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 all four required parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 ('Manually run', 'Start') and resource ('pipeline task', 'specific job in a pipeline run instance'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_job_action' or 'create_pipeline_run', which could be related operations, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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

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, such as needing an existing pipeline run, or contrast with tools like 'execute_job_action' or 'create_pipeline_run', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a query operation ('查询'), implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what format/log level the logs are returned in. For a log retrieval tool with 6 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that states the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key usage information. No wasted words or redundancy.

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

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

For a tool with 6 required parameters, 0% enum coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the parameter hierarchy, return format, error handling, or how it differs from sibling log tools. The context signals indicate high complexity, but the description doesn't provide enough information for an agent to use it correctly without guessing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is only 17% (1 of 6 parameters described). The description mentions logs contain 'downstream deployment engine scheduling details,' which hints at the content but doesn't explain any parameters. It doesn't clarify what organizationId, appName, changeOrderSn, jobSn, stageSn, or taskSn represent or how they relate to the deployment task hierarchy. The description adds minimal value beyond the sparse schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '查询部署任务执行日志' (query deployment task execution logs). It specifies the resource (deployment task logs) and indicates these logs contain downstream deployment engine scheduling details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_machine_deploy_log' or 'get_vm_deploy_machine_log', which appear to be related log retrieval 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With multiple sibling tools for retrieving logs (e.g., get_machine_deploy_log, get_vm_deploy_machine_log, list_change_order_job_logs), the absence of differentiation is a significant gap.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool generates YAML without creating anything (non-destructive), handles defaults internally, auto-extracts project names, and provides guidance on parameter collection strategies (IDE detection vs API calls). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors, leaving some gaps for a tool with 33 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 well-structured with sections (Use Cases, Recommended Workflow, etc.), but it's verbose for a tool description. Sentences like 'Balance efficiency vs. accuracy based on user intent' don't directly help tool invocation. While front-loaded with the core purpose, it includes instructional content that might be better placed in agent guidelines rather than the tool description itself.

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 (33 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a good job of providing context. It explains the tool's role in a workflow, when to use it, and behavioral aspects. However, for such a parameter-heavy tool, it could better summarize key parameters or constraints beyond what's in the schema, and it doesn't describe the output format (YAML structure).

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 33 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema—it mentions 'auto-extracts project name from repo URL' (related to 'repoUrl') and 'handles default service connections internally' (related to 'serviceConnectionId'), but most parameter context is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive 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: 'Generate only the YAML configuration for a pipeline without creating it.' This is a specific verb ('generate') + resource ('YAML configuration') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_pipeline_from_description' (which would actually create the pipeline). The description explicitly contrasts with creation, establishing a clear boundary.

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

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance through the '📋 Use Cases' section (preview, manual deployment, debug) and the '📖 Recommended Workflow' with step-by-step instructions. It distinguishes when to use this tool (for YAML generation only) versus alternatives like 'create_pipeline_from_description' (implied for actual creation). The '💡 Parameter Collection Strategy' further clarifies context-based decision-making.

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 this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the application doesn't exist. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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

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

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bracketed prefix '[application delivery]' could be considered slightly extraneous but provides domain context. Two concise phrases communicate the essential information without 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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, potential response formats, or error handling. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (many application management operations), more context about the return value and typical usage would be helpful.

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 ('organizationId' and 'appName') documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by name' which aligns with 'appName', but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get application details by name' which includes a verb ('Get') and resource ('application details'), but it's vague about what 'details' include. The bracketed prefix '[application delivery]' adds some context but doesn't clarify the scope. It doesn't distinguish from sibling 'list_applications' which presumably lists multiple applications.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_applications' or 'get_app_orchestration'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters 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 for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't describe what format the orchestration data returns, whether it's a complete configuration or partial view, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the basic verb.

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 - just one phrase in brackets. While this is efficient, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness. The bracketed domain context is front-loaded, but the core description is minimal. Every word earns its place, but more content would be beneficial.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'application orchestration' is in this context, what data structure is returned, or how this differs from similar tools. The combination of complex parameters and lack of structured metadata means the description should provide more contextual completeness than it does.

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

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

The schema has 100% description coverage (all 5 parameters documented in Chinese), so the baseline is 3. The English description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between 'sn', 'tagName', and 'sha' parameters, or clarify what happens when different combinations are specified. The schema descriptions provide the essential documentation.

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 '[application delivery] Get an application orchestration' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'get_app_orchestration' with minimal additional context. While it specifies the domain ('application delivery'), it doesn't clearly articulate what an 'application orchestration' is or what specific data/configuration this tool retrieves compared to similar tools like 'get_latest_orchestration' or 'list_app_orchestration'.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_latest_orchestration' (which presumably gets the latest version) and 'list_app_orchestration' (which likely lists multiple), there's no indication of when this specific 'get' operation is appropriate versus those alternatives, nor any prerequisites or contextual constraints mentioned.

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 only states the action ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'variable groups' are, what data is returned, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool in a complex domain with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand its role and 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'organizationId' and 'appName'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between these parameters or their expected formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('variable groups for an application'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'variable groups' are or what data is returned, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_variable_group' or 'get_env_variable_groups', 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone. This is a significant gap in helping the agent select the right tool among many similar ones.

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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or what format the revision information takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, though it could benefit from slightly more context about what 'revision' entails.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'revision' means in this context, what format the return value takes, or how this differs from related variable group operations. Given the complexity of application delivery systems, more context about this specific revision query would be helpful.

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 ('organizationId' and 'appName') clearly documented in Chinese. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and target resource ('revision of variable groups for an application'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_app_variable_groups' by specifying 'revision' rather than the groups themselves. However, it doesn't fully explain what 'revision' means 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 like 'get_app_variable_groups' or 'get_variable_group'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or what distinguishes this revision-focused query from other variable group operations.

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 this is a read operation ('Get information'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what information is returned. For a tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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

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

For a tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'information' is returned, how errors are handled, or provide any context about the package repository system. The agent would need to rely heavily on parameter descriptions and trial-and-error to use this 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 all parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 information about' and the resource 'a single artifact in a package repository', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_artifacts', which appears to list multiple artifacts rather than retrieve details for a single one.

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 'list_artifacts' or other artifact-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing artifact ID from list_artifacts) or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter descriptions 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 provided, so description carries full burden. It states it retrieves information but does not specify what information is returned, read-only nature, or required permissions. Minimally sufficient but could be more detailed.

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

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

Single sentence with a useful category prefix. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Ideal length for a simple tool.

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

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

With 3 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not describe the return value or additional behavior. Adequate for a simple get, but more context would improve completeness.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., URL encoding for branchName, repositoryId format). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get information') and resource ('a branch in a Codeup repository'), with a category prefix. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_branches' which lists branches, and 'create_branch' which creates.

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 details of a specific branch, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'list_branches' or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '读取' (read) implies this is likely a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state this or disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is extremely concise - a single Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. The bracketed '[application delivery]' prefix provides helpful context, though it could be more integrated into the sentence structure.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned (beyond mentioning '物料和工单状态' - materials and work order status), doesn't indicate if this is a single record lookup versus a list operation, and provides no context about error conditions or typical usage patterns. Given the complexity implied by three required parameters and the lack of structured metadata, the description should do more.

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 100%, with all three parameters clearly documented in Chinese. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '读取部署单使用的物料和工单状态' (read deployment order materials and work order status). It specifies the verb '读取' (read) and the resource '部署单' (deployment order), making it clear this is a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_change_request' or 'list_change_orders_by_origin', which appear to be related read operations.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that appear to retrieve change/order-related information (get_change_request, list_change_orders_by_origin, list_change_order_versions, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over those other options.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Get information' but fails to specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 brief and front-loaded with a single sentence, efficiently stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. However, the '[Code Management]' tag, while helpful, could be integrated more smoothly, and the lack of follow-up details slightly reduces effectiveness.

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with three required parameters. It fails to explain what information is returned, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to effectively use the tool in 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 input schema fully documents the three required parameters (organizationId, repositoryId, localId). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, resulting in a baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get information about a change request' with a '[Code Management]' context tag, which clarifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('change request'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_change_order' or 'list_change_requests', leaving the scope ambiguous between retrieving a single item versus listing multiple items.

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. With siblings like 'list_change_requests' (for listing) and 'get_change_order' (for similar single-item retrieval of orders), the description lacks explicit comparisons or context for selection, offering only basic functional intent.

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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what format the audit items are returned in, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. For a tool with four required parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is extremely concise - a single sentence with the domain context in brackets. Every word serves a purpose: it identifies the domain, the action, and the target resource. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently front-loaded.

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

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

For a read operation with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'audit items' consist of, their format, or any constraints on retrieval. The description is minimally adequate given the structured schema support but doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema and behavioral transparency.

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 four parameters documented in the schema (organizationId, appName, sn, refType). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without additional param info in the description.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get audit items') and the target resource ('for a change request'), with the bracketed '[application delivery]' providing domain context. It distinguishes this as a retrieval operation rather than a creation or modification tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling audit-related tools (none are listed in siblings, but the distinction isn't articulated).

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to other audit or change request tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, with no explicit contextual 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get information', which implies a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, authentication needs, or any side effects.

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

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

The description is extremely concise (one line with category prefix), but it sacrifices informative content. It is not structured with any guidance beyond the bare minimum.

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

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

For a simple retrieve tool with no output schema or annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the response format, how to format the SHA, or any edge cases, leaving the agent under-informed.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'commit', differentiating from sibling tools like list_commits and compare. However, it does not specify what 'information' means.

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

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

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus siblings like compare or list_commits, nor any prerequisites mentioned.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions token-based query and precedence, but lacks details on error conditions or side effects. Adequate but could be more thorough.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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

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

No output schema and no annotations; description does not specify return values or structure. Precedence behavior is mentioned but not fully explained. Some gaps remain.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline 4 per rules. Description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable as none are needed.

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

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

The description clearly states it gets info about current user and organization based on the token, distinguishing it from sibling tools that require explicit IDs like get_organization_department_info.

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?

Mentions precedence when no org ID is specified, implying use when lacking a specific ID. Does not explicitly state when to avoid, but context from sibling names provides implicit guidance.

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

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

The description explains the tool returns info based on token but does not detail the return format, potential errors (e.g., invalid token), or any side effects. Given no annotations, it partially meets the burden.

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

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

The description is two sentences long, front-loading the core action, and every word adds value 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 simple read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient but could briefly mention the read-only nature or typical fields returned to fully inform the agent.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of them (none). The description does not need to add parameter information, so it meets the baseline for this dimension.

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 retrieves current user information based on the token, and highlights that it takes precedence over explicit user IDs, distinguishing it from sibling tools that require a user ID parameter.

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 use when the agent needs the authenticated user's info without an explicit user ID, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tool names for different 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the domain context and core action. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, response format) and usage context, which are critical for an agent to invoke it correctly. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context is incomplete.

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 100%, with all three parameters ('organizationId', 'appName', 'envName') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying these are needed to scope the environment. This meets the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and target resource ('variable groups for an environment') with domain context ('[application delivery]'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_app_variable_groups' or 'get_variable_group', which appear to retrieve similar resources but for different scopes.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or relationships to sibling tools like 'get_app_variable_groups' or 'get_variable_group', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It only states 'get file content', implying a read operation, but omits details such as error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the content is returned raw or encoded.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with a category prefix, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is slightly too terse and could include more useful information without significant length increase.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return format (e.g., raw content, base64). No mention of error conditions or edge cases. For a simple retrieval tool, this is incomplete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema; baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states it retrieves file content from a Codeup repository, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_files (listing files) or compare, but could be more explicit about what 'content' entails.

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, there is no mention that this tool should be used for retrieving raw file content, while list_files is for metadata.

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