AlibabaCloud DevOps MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tool set covers multiple domains (application delivery, code management, pipeline management, etc.) with generally distinct purposes within each domain, but there is some overlap that could cause confusion. For example, multiple tools involve 'change requests' across different domains (e.g., create_change_request in Code Management vs. create_appstack_change_request in application delivery), and tools like list_change_requests and list_change_request_executions have unclear boundaries. Descriptions help, but the sheer number of tools increases ambiguity risk.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout (e.g., create_application, list_repositories, update_work_item), with minor deviations like mixed language descriptions (some in English, some in Chinese) and occasional verbose names (e.g., get_organization_department_ancestors). The naming is predictable and readable, though not perfectly uniform due to these language and length variations.
Tool Count2/5
With 130 tools, the count is excessive for a single MCP server, making it overwhelming and difficult to navigate. While the server covers a broad DevOps scope, the tool surface feels bloated with many specialized or redundant tools (e.g., multiple list and get variants for similar resources). A more focused set of 20-50 tools would be more manageable and appropriate.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage across its intended domains (application delivery, code management, pipeline management, project management, etc.), with full CRUD operations for most resources (e.g., create, get, list, update, delete for applications, pipelines, work items). There are no obvious gaps; agents can perform end-to-end workflows without dead ends, supported by detailed descriptions and built-in capabilities.
Average 2.8/5 across 130 of 130 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
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 merely states the action 'resume' without explaining what this entails—such as whether it restarts a paused deployment, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or impacts other operations. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single phrase, but it under-specifies rather than being efficiently informative. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to provide necessary context, making it more of a placeholder than a well-structured description that front-loads key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavior, side effects, prerequisites, and expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and correctly invoke the tool in context with its siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 input schema (organizationId, pipelineId, deployOrderId). The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters, such as their interrelationships or usage examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation solely from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Resume VM deploy order' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'resume' and resource 'VM deploy order' but lacks specificity about what 'resuming' entails operationally, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'stop_vm_deploy_order' or 'retry_vm_deploy_machine' in terms of scope or effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't mention related tools like 'stop_vm_deploy_order' or 'retry_vm_deploy_machine', nor does it specify conditions under which resuming is applicable (e.g., after a stop or failure).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness2/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose2/5
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.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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.
Behavior1/5
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 none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, what happens to associated resources, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., order status change). The description is purely functional without 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—just two words plus a bracketed prefix—with no wasted verbiage. However, the prefix '[VM Deploy Order Management]' adds minimal value and could be integrated more smoothly. The structure is front-loaded but under-specified, leaning toward brevity over clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool ('stop') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'stopping' entails behaviorally, what the result looks like, or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by three required IDs and the lack of structured safety hints, the description fails to provide adequate context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 Chinese ('企业Id', '流水线Id', '部署单Id'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or inter-parameter relationships. Given the high schema coverage, 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.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop VM deploy order' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'stop' and resource 'VM deploy order' but lacks specificity about what stopping entails (e.g., halting execution, canceling pending tasks) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'cancel_change_request' or 'resume_vm_deploy_order' beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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., the deploy order must be running), exclusions (e.g., cannot stop completed orders), or comparisons to similar tools like 'cancel_change_request' or 'resume_vm_deploy_order', leaving the agent with no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose2/5
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.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose2/5
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.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose pagination details (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes an 'execution' versus a 'change request'. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—just two words plus a domain tag—with no wasted words. However, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), bordering on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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, 5 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'executions' are, how results are structured, or usage context. The schema handles parameters well, but the description fails to provide necessary operational and domain context for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed parameter documentation (e.g., '分页尺寸参数，决定一页最多返回多少对象' for perPage). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema is comprehensive, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high coverage without extra value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List change request executions' restates the tool name with minimal context. While it includes a domain tag '[application delivery]', it doesn't specify what 'executions' means or how this differs from sibling tools like 'list_change_requests' or 'list_change_orders_by_origin'. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 multiple sibling tools related to change requests (e.g., 'list_change_requests', 'get_change_request', 'list_change_orders_by_origin'), the description offers no differentiation, prerequisites, or context for selection. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('Search') without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'template'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations, offering minimal insight into how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—just two bracketed words and a phrase. It's front-loaded but arguably under-specified rather than efficiently informative. There's no wasted text, but it lacks substance. A higher score is reserved for descriptions that balance brevity with useful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the search scope, result format, or error conditions. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but the description fails to provide the contextual understanding needed for effective tool selection and use, especially given the complexity implied by multiple pagination parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying a search over 'application templates'. It doesn't clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., pagination modes) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[application delivery] Search application templates' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the resource ('application templates') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'Search' and doesn't differentiate from sibling search tools like 'search_app_tags' or 'search_workitems'. This is borderline tautological with only a bracketed context hint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, typical use cases, or how it differs from other search or list tools in the sibling set (e.g., 'list_applications', 'search_app_tags'). This leaves the agent with no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or what happens to unspecified fields. It lacks critical context about this being a version-controlled operation (implied by parameters like 'commitMessage' and 'fromRevisionSha' but not explained).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified - it's so short that it fails to convey necessary information. The structure is simple but lacks the front-loaded clarity needed for tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex mutation tool with 9 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain the version control aspect, commit behavior, or what 'orchestration' entails in this context. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool effectively given the rich parameter schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'sn' identifies the specific orchestration to update) or provide usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't add value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an application orchestration' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_app_orchestration'. While it specifies the resource ('application orchestration'), it lacks specificity about what aspects are updated or how this differs from sibling tools like 'update_application' or 'update_pipeline'. The bracketed '[application delivery]' adds minimal context but doesn't clarify the core action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 multiple sibling update tools (e.g., update_application, update_pipeline, update_app_tag), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct, what prerequisites exist, or when it should be selected over other update operations. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose2/5
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.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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 'List change requests' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (no output schema). The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two words and a bracketed context, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the action but lacks necessary detail for clarity. While not verbose, it fails to earn its place by omitting key information, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the tool's complexity, such as filtering options, pagination behavior, or return format. For a list operation with many optional parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying listing functionality. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., filtering combinations) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[Code Management] List change requests' restates the tool name with minimal context. It specifies the action ('List') and resource ('change requests') but lacks specificity about what change requests are (e.g., merge requests, pull requests) or scope details. Compared to siblings like 'get_change_request' (singular) or 'list_change_request_comments', it doesn't clearly differentiate beyond the plural form.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'get_change_request' (singular fetch), 'list_change_request_comments' (related comments), and 'search_workitems' (broader search), but the description doesn't mention these or specify contexts like filtering needs or pagination scenarios. Usage is implied only by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Query' suggests a read-only operation, but it doesn't confirm this or describe what the comparison output looks like (diffs, statistics, etc.), error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description lacks essential context about what 'compare' actually returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 6 words, which is appropriate for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation. However, it could be more front-loaded with specific information about what's being compared. There's no wasted text, but it borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter comparison tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the comparison returns (diffs, change lists, statistics), doesn't mention typical use cases, and provides no context about the comparison algorithm or limitations. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description fails to provide necessary operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the generic 'query code to compare content' phrase. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'from' and 'to' interact with 'sourceType' and 'targetType') or provide usage examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Query code to compare content' which indicates a comparison operation but is vague about what specifically is being compared. It mentions 'code' and 'content' but doesn't specify if this compares commits, branches, files, or other code artifacts. While it distinguishes from many siblings (most are CRUD operations), it lacks the specificity needed for a 4 or 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, typical use cases, or comparison with similar tools like 'get_commit' or 'list_commits' that might provide related functionality. The agent must infer usage from parameter names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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 '登记' (register/create) which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, whether this creates a new record or updates existing ones, error conditions, or what happens on success. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two parts: a domain context hint and the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from slightly more specificity. The structure is front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what the tool returns, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools. The context signals indicate significant complexity that isn't addressed in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 7 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[Project Management] 登记预计工时' states the tool's purpose (register estimated effort) and includes a domain context hint, but it's vague about what specific resource or entity this applies to. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_effort_record' or 'update_estimated_effort', leaving ambiguity about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'create_effort_record', 'list_estimated_efforts', and 'update_estimated_effort' available, there's no indication of the specific use case for this tool, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get', implying a read operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the variable group doesn't exist. The description lacks details on return format, error handling, or any side effects, which is insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be improved by front-loading more critical information, such as distinguishing it from siblings. The brevity is appropriate but leaves room for enhancement in clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'global variable group' entails, how it differs from other variable tools, or what the return value includes. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to ensure proper usage and understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters (organizationId, name, revisionSha) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a global variable group' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('global variable group'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_variable_group' or 'get_app_variable_groups', leaving ambiguity about scope or specificity. The description is functional but lacks distinction from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'get_variable_group' or 'list_global_vars'. The description offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage based on name alone. This lack of explicit guidance reduces effectiveness in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without detailing what the log contains, format, permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two bracketed words and a short phrase, making it front-loaded and waste-free. However, it borders on under-specification, as more detail could improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what the deployment log contains, its format, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to effectively use the tool despite the complete parameter schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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, tunnelId, machineSn). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline score for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
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 machine deployment log' with the context '[application delivery]', which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('machine deployment log'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_vm_deploy_machine_log' or 'find_task_operation_log', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus similar alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_vm_deploy_machine_log', leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence: 'Get information about a department in an organization.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'Retrieve details' instead of 'Get information') to enhance clarity without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, potential errors, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to adequately guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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' and 'id' clearly documented as 'Organization ID' and 'Department ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get information about a department in an organization' clearly states the verb ('Get information') and resource ('department in an organization'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what information is retrieved and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_organization_department_ancestors' or 'list_organization_departments', which handle related department data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like needing specific IDs, compare it to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_organization_departments' for multiple departments), or indicate any usage constraints, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get information', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what information is returned. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent adequately about 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in a single sentence. The bracketed context '[Organization Management]' is concise and adds minimal overhead. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 does not explain what information is returned, potential errors, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to compensate, but it falls short, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'organizationId' and 'roleId'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between parameters. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get information about an organization role', which clearly indicates a read operation on a specific resource (organization role). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_organization_member_info' or 'list_organization_roles', making it vague in comparison. The bracketed '[Organization Management]' adds some context but is not specific enough for full clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing specific permissions or when to choose this over similar tools like 'list_organization_roles'. This lack of explicit or implied usage context leaves the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 implies a read-only operation ('Get information'), but does not detail aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the key action ('Get information about a sprint') in a single sentence, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating the domain context more seamlessly, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and what information is returned, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but other aspects are underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters (organizationId, projectId, id) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters, such as their relationships or example values. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Get information about a sprint') with a domain context ('[Project Management]'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('sprint'), but lacks specificity about what information is retrieved or how it differs from sibling tools like 'list_sprints' or 'get_work_item'. This makes it adequate but with gaps in distinguishing its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as 'list_sprints' (for listing multiple sprints) or 'get_work_item' (for related items), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without explicit direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's read-only, requires permissions, involves rate limits, or what the output format is, leaving 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure or elaboration that could enhance clarity, making it efficient but potentially under-specified for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or usage context, failing to compensate for the lack of structured metadata, which is inadequate given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 extra meaning beyond implying a hierarchical relationship (organization → pipeline → deploy order → machine), but this is minimal value over the schema's clear parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Get') and resource ('VM deploy machine log'), but it's vague about what 'get' entails—whether it retrieves, downloads, or streams logs. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_machine_deploy_log' or 'get_pipeline_job_run_log', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or related tools, offering no help in distinguishing it from similar logging tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what format the details are returned in, whether it's paginated, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two sentences, with zero wasted words. The bracketed prefix '[VM Deploy Order Management]' provides helpful categorization, and the main statement is direct. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of completeness, which is reflected in other dimension scores.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, what format they come in, or provide any context about the VM deploy order domain. The agent would need to guess about the return structure and behavioral characteristics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 three parameters (organizationId, pipelineId, deployOrderId) with descriptions. The tool 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get VM deploy order details' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('VM deploy order details'), but it's vague about what specific details are retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_change_order' or 'get_pipeline_run' that might also retrieve order-like entities in this system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (over 100), there's no indication whether this is the primary way to retrieve VM deploy orders or if other tools like 'list_change_orders_by_origin' might serve similar purposes. No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get information' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what information is returned (e.g., full details, limited fields), whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
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, though it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'Retrieve details of a specific work item by ID'). The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of work items in project management, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., fields like title, status, assignee), potential errors (e.g., if the work item doesn't exist), or how it differs from other work item tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 'workItemId') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. With high 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[Project Management] Get information about a work item' states the tool's purpose with a verb ('Get') and resource ('work item'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other work item-related tools like 'get_work_item_type' or 'search_workitems' in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'search_workitems' (for listing/filtering) and 'get_work_item_type' (for metadata), there's no indication that this tool is for retrieving a single work item by ID, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 ('List') without detailing traits like pagination, sorting, filtering beyond the parameters, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a single sentence and no wasted words. However, the bracketed '[application delivery]' feels slightly extraneous and could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it's front-loaded and efficient, though minimalism limits informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 for a list tool with two required parameters. It doesn't explain what 'application orchestrations' entail, the return format, or how parameters affect the listing (e.g., filtering logic). For a tool in a complex domain with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions ('组织ID' and '应用名'), so the schema already documents the inputs adequately. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, such as format examples or constraints beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('List') and resource ('application orchestrations'), which is clear but basic. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_applications' or 'get_app_orchestration', leaving ambiguity about scope (e.g., whether it lists all orchestrations or filtered ones). The bracketed '[application delivery]' adds minimal context but doesn't specify the tool's exact purpose beyond the verb and noun.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_applications' and 'get_app_orchestration', the description lacks any indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This forces the agent to infer usage from the name 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.
Behavior2/5
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. The description only states it's a query operation, but doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated (though parameters suggest they are), or what format/log level the logs contain. For a logging tool with 6 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just one Chinese phrase. While this is efficient, it's arguably too brief for a tool with 6 parameters. However, it's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no wasted words. The single sentence earns its place but leaves significant information gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what kind of logs are returned, their format, or typical use cases. The sibling tools include multiple logging-related tools, making context even more important. The description fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that jobSn is a sub-component of changeOrderSn) or provide examples of valid values. The baseline is 3 since the schema does most of the work, but the description doesn't compensate for the 33% coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states '查询环境部署单日志' which translates to 'query environment deployment order logs' - this provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's somewhat vague about what exactly is being queried (logs for a specific job within a deployment order) and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar logging tools in the sibling list like 'get_machine_deploy_log' or 'get_pipeline_job_run_log'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 logging-related tools in the sibling list (get_machine_deploy_log, get_pipeline_job_run_log, find_task_operation_log), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. The description only states it queries deployment orders by creation origin, without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how results are returned (pagination, sorting, etc.), or any rate limits. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could affect agent usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just one sentence in Chinese, which efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it could be more front-loaded with additional context about when to use it. There's no wasted language, but it might be too brief given the tool's complexity and the lack of annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, whether there's pagination, or any error conditions. For a query tool with multiple filtering parameters in a complex application delivery context, more completeness is needed to guide effective agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'originType' values might be acceptable, what 'appName' and 'envName' filtering does, or provide examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[application delivery] 根据创建来源查询部署单' states the tool queries deployment orders by creation origin, which is a clear purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'deployment orders' specifically are and doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_change_orders' or 'list_change_requests' that might have similar functionality. The Chinese phrase '部署单' could be interpreted as 'deployment orders' or 'change orders,' but the English tool name clarifies it's about change orders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'list_change_orders', 'list_change_requests', and 'get_change_order', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's the appropriate choice. The description mentions querying by creation origin, but doesn't explain when that filtering is needed versus other filtering methods available in other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 '查看' (view), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't confirm safety (e.g., no side effects), describe output format (e.g., list structure, pagination details), or mention rate limits or authentication needs. For a list tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral traits undocumented, though it correctly implies a non-destructive action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese: '[application delivery] 查看部署单版本列表'. It's front-loaded with the domain and action, with zero wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating it's a filtered list tool, but its brevity is generally effective for conveying the core purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, filtering, pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like read-only safety, output format, or error handling, nor does it provide usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for missing annotations and output details, making it inadequate for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., organizationId, appName, envNames for filtering, pagination defaults). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between filters or typical use cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[application delivery] 查看部署单版本列表' states the purpose as viewing a list of deployment order versions, which is clear but vague. It specifies the domain (application delivery) and resource (deployment order versions), but lacks specificity about what 'list' entails (e.g., filtered, paginated) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_change_orders_by_origin' or 'list_change_requests'. This is adequate but has gaps in distinguishing functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 organization and app context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_change_order' (for single version) or 'list_change_orders_by_origin' (for different filtering). Without explicit or implied usage context, users must infer from parameters alone, leading to potential misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior, or rate limits. The description only states the action without any operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action. However, the bracketed '[application delivery]' is somewhat ambiguous and could be integrated more smoothly. It avoids unnecessary verbosity but lacks structural clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list format, fields) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (organizationId, appName, sn). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool lists work items for a change request, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_work_item_comments' or 'search_workitems', nor does it specify scope (e.g., all work items or filtered ones). The bracketed '[application delivery]' adds some context but is vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid change request identifier, and does not mention sibling tools like 'get_work_item' or 'search_workitems' for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 '获取实际工时明细' (retrieve actual effort details), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if parameters are invalid. For a tool with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a single phrase, front-loaded with the context '[Project Management]'. There is no wasted text, but it may be overly brief given the lack of other guidance. Every word earns its place, though more detail could improve completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema with 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how results are formatted, or any behavioral aspects. For a list tool in a project management context with many sibling tools, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('id' and 'organizationId') documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between these parameters or providing examples. Baseline is 3 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[Project Management] 获取实际工时明细' states the general purpose (retrieve actual effort details in project management context) but lacks specificity. It uses a generic verb '获取' (get/retrieve) without distinguishing from similar tools like 'list_current_user_effort_records' or 'list_estimated_efforts' among the siblings. The purpose is clear but not differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'list_current_user_effort_records' and 'list_estimated_efforts', the description does not indicate whether this tool lists all effort records, filtered records, or has specific scoping. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states it 'gets' details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what happens if parameters are invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with a context tag, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be more informative. It earns its place by stating the core action concisely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a read operation with two required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, return format, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('id' and 'organizationId') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are used to fetch effort details. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool '获取预计工时明细' (gets estimated effort details) with a [Project Management] context tag, which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' include and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_estimated_effort' (singular) or 'list_effort_records' (actual records). The purpose is clear but vague in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., for planning vs. reporting), or comparisons to siblings like 'list_current_user_effort_records' or 'list_effort_records'. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameters, with no explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify if it's paginated (hinted by parameters but not explicit), what the output format is (no output schema), or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, permissions required). The description lacks details on how results are structured or any side effects, which 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—just one sentence with a bracketed context hint. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), or how 'global variable groups' relate to other variable tools in the sibling list. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 four parameters (organizationId, current, pageSize, search) with descriptions in Chinese. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a searchable list, which doesn't compensate for or enhance the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('List') and resource ('global variable groups'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it's vague about what 'global variable groups' are in this context (e.g., configuration variables, environment settings) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_global_var' (which likely retrieves a single variable) or 'get_app_variable_groups' (which might be application-specific). The bracketed '[application delivery]' adds some context but remains ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_global_var' (for single variable retrieval) or 'get_app_variable_groups' (for application-specific variables), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing organization access or typical use cases (e.g., auditing, configuration management). This leaves 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'List' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature (implied but not stated), potential pagination, sorting, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves operationally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (two parts: bracketed context and core statement) with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be more structured by integrating the context into a fuller sentence, but it's efficient given its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple list operation) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., role names, IDs, permissions), error handling, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage (one parameter 'organizationId' with a clear description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb ('List') and resource ('organization roles'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it doesn't specify what 'list' entails (e.g., returns all roles, paginated results) or differentiate from similar tools like 'get_organization_role' (singular) or 'list_organization_members' (different resource). The bracketed '[Organization Management]' adds some context but is not specific to this tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 an organization ID), contrast with 'get_organization_role' for single roles, or specify use cases like role enumeration for permission management. The description is purely declarative without contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Retry' implies a mutation/action on a failed deployment, but the description doesn't specify what happens during retry, whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two bracketed context words and the core action. While efficient, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness. Every word earns its place, but more words might be needed for adequate clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'retry' entails operationally, what happens to the machine being retried, what success/failure looks like, or how this differs from similar operations. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the core behavioral context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 Chinese ('企业Id', '流水线Id', etc.), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide context about what these IDs represent. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema documentation is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retries VM deploy machine, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'skip_vm_deploy_machine' or 'resume_vm_deploy_order' - it's unclear what 'retry' means versus 'skip' or 'resume' in this context. The bracketed context '[VM Deploy Order Management]' provides some domain context but doesn't clarify the specific action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., when a deploy machine has failed), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar sibling tools like 'skip_vm_deploy_machine' or 'resume_vm_deploy_order'. The description assumes the user already knows when retry is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 read-only search operation but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on errors. The description lacks details on output format or any constraints beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with just two words plus a bracketed context, making it front-loaded and waste-free. However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 search tool with 6 parameters. It fails to explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool in a complex domain (application delivery), this minimal description leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'search' relates to 'application tags', which is already clear from the tool name. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[application delivery] Search application tags' states the action (search) and resource (application tags), but it's vague about scope and lacks differentiation from siblings like 'search_app_templates' or 'search_workitems'. It doesn't specify what 'application tags' are or what the search returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., needing organizationId), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'list_applications' or 'search_app_templates', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'nextToken' and 'page'/'perPage' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with 9 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence and no wasted words. However, it lacks front-loading of critical details (e.g., search capabilities, pagination) and could be more structured to highlight key aspects, though it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the search functionality, result format, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool with rich input options, this minimal description does not provide enough context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 9 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or search logic. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Search for') and resource ('organization members'), which is clear but minimal. It lacks specificity about what 'search' entails (e.g., filtering, pagination) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_organization_members' or 'get_organization_member_info', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention sibling tools like 'list_organization_members' or 'get_organization_member_info', nor does it explain prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, offering no help for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'skip' but doesn't clarify if this is a destructive action, requires specific permissions, affects deployment status, or has side effects like logging. For a deployment management tool, this lack of detail is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Skip VM deploy machine'), but it includes a bracketed context ('[VM Deploy Order Management]') that adds minimal value. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though slightly cluttered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of deployment management, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'skip' means operationally, what happens after skipping (e.g., deployment continues without the machine), or any error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 four parameters (organizationId, pipelineId, deployOrderId, machineSn) with descriptions in Chinese. The description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters, such as their relationships or typical values, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool is for 'Skip VM deploy machine' within 'VM Deploy Order Management', indicating it skips a machine in a deployment process. However, it's vague about what 'skip' entails (e.g., bypassing, postponing, or canceling deployment for that machine) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'stop_vm_deploy_order' or 'retry_vm_deploy_machine', which also manage VM deployments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context on prerequisites, timing (e.g., during deployment failures), or comparisons to siblings like 'retry_vm_deploy_machine' or 'stop_vm_deploy_order', leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' implies a mutation, but doesn't describe permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with just one sentence plus a bracketed context hint. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the bracketed '[application delivery]' feels like metadata that could be integrated more smoothly, and the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, what the update does, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies applications in what appears to be a complex DevOps environment, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 three parameters (organizationId, appName, ownerId) with descriptions. The tool 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing application'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what aspects of the application are updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_app_orchestration' or 'update_app_tag' that also update application-related entities. The bracketed '[application delivery]' adds some context but isn't specific enough for full clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'create_application' and 'get_application', the description doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., an application must exist) or contrast with other update tools (e.g., 'update_app_orchestration' for orchestration vs. this for general updates). This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's an update operation without detailing behavioral aspects. It doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on what the update entails or returns, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it updates estimated effort, which aligns with the 'spentTime' parameter but doesn't enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool updates estimated effort hours, which is a clear purpose with a specific verb ('更新' meaning update) and resource ('预计工时' meaning estimated effort). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_effort_record' or 'create_estimated_effort', leaving ambiguity about when to use each.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'update_effort_record' or 'create_estimated_effort' for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or response format, which 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, avoiding unnecessary words. However, it's slightly under-specified as it could benefit from a bit more detail to enhance clarity without losing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, failing to compensate for the missing structured information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'resource member', which clarifies the basic action. However, it's vague about what specifically gets updated (e.g., roles, permissions) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_resource_owner' or 'create_resource_member', missing specific details that would distinguish it clearly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as needing existing resource members, or compare it to related tools like 'create_resource_member' or 'delete_resource_member', 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.
Behavior2/5
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 'Update a variable group', implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—just one phrase—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, making it efficient to parse. However, it might be overly terse, lacking necessary detail for a mutation tool with 9 parameters, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral nuances. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but the overall context for safe and correct usage is lacking, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between fields like 'variableGroupName' and 'name'). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Update') and resource ('a variable group'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of a variable group are updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_variable_group' or 'delete_variable_group' beyond the verb. The '[application delivery]' prefix adds some context but doesn't fully clarify the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'delete_variable_group'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing variable group to update, or any context-specific conditions for its use. It merely states the action without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose3/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters2/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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 only states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value includes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with three required parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 key 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, return values, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool in a complex domain with many alternatives, this minimal description is insufficient for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in Chinese (e.g., '组织ID' for organizationId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Get') and resource ('a variable group') with a domain context hint ('[application delivery]'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_app_variable_groups' or 'get_env_variable_groups', leaving ambiguity about scope or specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'get_app_variable_groups' or 'get_env_variable_groups'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, offering no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness3/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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's a creation tool, implying mutation, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. The [Code Management] tag provides helpful context upfront, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context is lacking for proper agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new branch') and resource ('in a Codeup repository'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_file' or 'create_commit_comment' beyond the [Code Management] tag, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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-not-to-use scenarios, or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_file' or 'delete_branch' in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just 7 words including the domain prefix. Every word earns its place: '[Code Management]' provides context, 'Create a comment' states the action, and 'on a commit' specifies the target. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns comment ID, success status), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for using this mutation tool is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (organizationId, repositoryId, sha, content). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 target resource ('on a commit'), with the '[Code Management]' prefix providing domain context. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_change_request_comment' or 'create_work_item_comment' that create comments on different resource types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinguish this from other comment-creation tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose without addressing permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a creation tool with 8 parameters, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two Chinese characters and a bracketed context label, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it's arguably too brief for a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, potentially sacrificing clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, 5 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, error scenarios, or how this tool relates to the effort record system, leaving the agent with inadequate context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, providing good documentation for all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('登记实际工时' meaning 'record actual working hours') and resource ('Project Management' context), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_estimated_effort' or 'update_effort_record', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'create_estimated_effort' (for estimated hours) or 'update_effort_record' (for modifying existing records). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new file' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether this creates commits automatically (though parameters suggest it does), error conditions, or what happens on conflicts. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. The '[Code Management]' prefix could be considered slightly redundant but doesn't significantly detract. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema and trial-and-error for understanding this mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific 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 description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new file') and the resource ('in a Codeup repository'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_file' or 'delete_file' beyond the basic action difference, and the '[Code Management]' prefix adds minimal value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'update_file' or 'delete_file'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases beyond the basic action stated. 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.
Behavior2/5
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 'Create a new sprint' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response looks like. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words plus a domain tag, front-loaded with the key action. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or error handling, nor does it explain the relationship to sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., organizationId vs projectId) or usage examples. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('a new sprint') with a domain context ('[Project Management]'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_sprint' or 'get_sprint' beyond the basic action, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'update_sprint' or 'get_sprint', nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, response format, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just one sentence with the bracketed context upfront. Every word serves a purpose: domain context, action, target resource. There's zero wasted verbiage or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (success response, error conditions), doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or limitations, and doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for other gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps either. 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.
Purpose4/5
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 target resource ('for a specific work item'), with the bracketed context '[Project Management]' providing domain context. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_change_request_comment' which appears to serve a similar function for change requests rather than work items.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'create_change_request_comment' or 'list_work_item_comments'. It mentions the target is a 'specific work item' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for comment creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but does not disclose critical traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting pull requests), or if there are rate limits. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the action and resource. The '[Code Management]' prefix adds minimal but useful context without verbosity. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 does not address behavioral risks, return values, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context. The description is too minimal for a deletion operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for each parameter (organizationId, repositoryId, branchName). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid branch names beyond URL encoding. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a branch from a Codeup repository'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_file' or 'delete_resource_member' beyond the '[Code Management]' prefix, which is generic. The purpose is clear 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when deletion is irreversible or if there are prerequisites (e.g., branch must not be protected). It also does not mention any sibling tools like 'create_branch' or 'get_branch' for related operations. Usage context is implied by the action but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a deletion, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if it's reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., commit creation). The mention of 'Codeup repository' adds some context, but key behavioral traits like safety or impact are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to parse. The bracketed context '[Code Management]' is concise and informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with 5 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context like permissions needed, irreversibility warnings, commit behavior implications, or error conditions. The high parameter count and mutation nature demand more guidance than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like how 'branch' and 'filePath' interact). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage via the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a file from a Codeup repository'), with the '[Code Management]' context providing domain specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_branch' or 'delete_variable_group', which target different resources within the same system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., permissions needed), when deletion is appropriate, or what happens after deletion (e.g., commits, irreversibility). The sibling list includes 'delete_branch' and 'delete_variable_group', but no comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific branch information is returned. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get information about a branch') and includes the system context ('in a Codeup repository'). The bracketed '[Code Management]' prefix provides helpful categorization without adding bulk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about the branch (e.g., commit hash, protection status, last update), nor does it address common scenarios like handling non-existent branches. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a branch in a Codeup repository'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_branches' (which lists multiple branches) and 'create_branch'/'delete_branch' (which modify branches). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_commit' or 'get_repository', which are 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_branch' over 'list_branches' (for single vs. multiple branches) or other sibling tools like 'get_commit' (for commit details). There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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 information about a commit' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what information is returned (metadata, diff, author details), whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. The bracketed '[Code Management]' prefix provides helpful context without adding unnecessary length. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 'information' is returned (commit details, diff, metadata), whether this includes file changes, or what format the response takes. With 3 required parameters and no structured output documentation, more descriptive content is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 three parameters (organizationId, repositoryId, sha) with their descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which 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.
Purpose4/5
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 ('information about a commit'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_commits' or 'get_branch', which would require more specific scope information to earn 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'list_commits' and 'get_branch' available, there's no indication whether this is for retrieving a single commit by SHA versus listing multiple commits or getting branch-specific commit information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'latest' means (e.g., most recent by time, version, or status). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, and the bracketed context '[application delivery]' is minimal but relevant. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with three parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral constraints. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for an AI agent to use this tool effectively is insufficient, especially compared to other tools in the sibling list that might have similar purposes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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, envName). The description doesn't add any semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or format expectations. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('latest orchestration for an environment'), specifying it's for application delivery. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_app_orchestration' by focusing on the 'latest' version. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other retrieval tools in the same domain beyond the 'latest' qualifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, when not to use it, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_app_orchestration' or 'list_app_orchestration' from the sibling list. The context '[application delivery]' is minimal and doesn't constitute meaningful usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 information') without detailing what information is returned, whether it's read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, or other behavioral traits. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 information is returned about the member, the response format, or any behavioral context like error handling. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('organizationId' and 'memberId') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between these IDs or their format, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get information') and resource ('about a member in an organization'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_organization_member_info_by_user_id' or 'list_organization_members', which would be needed for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_organization_member_info_by_user_id' or 'list_organization_members', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned information. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what information is returned, error handling, or behavioral constraints. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to fully guide an agent, especially without structured support from annotations or output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 'userId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's implied by the tool name (e.g., it doesn't clarify if 'userId' refers to an internal ID or external identifier). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('about a member in an organization'), specifying it's done 'by user ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_organization_member_info' (which likely lacks user ID filtering) and 'list_organization_members' (which lists multiple members). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what specific information is retrieved, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 is provided. The description implies usage when you have a user ID and want member info, but it doesn't compare to siblings like 'search_organization_members' or 'list_organization_members', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 details' but does not specify what details are included, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 for a tool that retrieves details. It does not explain what details are returned, potential errors, or behavioral traits like permissions or limitations. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to fully utilize the tool in complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both required parameters ('organizationId' and 'pipelineId') with their purposes. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter interactions or usage examples, so it meets the baseline score for adequate but minimal value addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get details of a specific pipeline in an organization,' which includes a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('pipeline'), and scope ('in an organization'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_pipeline_run' or 'list_pipelines,' which might retrieve related information, so it falls short of 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_pipelines' for multiple pipelines or 'get_pipeline_run' for run details. It lacks explicit instructions on prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage, offering only a basic statement of purpose without operational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), what format/log-level the logs are in, if there are rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination for large logs. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence reinforces the scope but could be integrated more efficiently. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., text, JSON, structured logs), error conditions, or behavioral traits like whether logs are streamed or truncated. For a log retrieval tool with 4 required parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool retrieves logs for a specific job, which is already clear from parameter names like 'jobId'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 'execution logs of a pipeline job', specifying it retrieves log content for a specific job in a pipeline run. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pipeline_run' or 'list_pipeline_job_historys' by focusing on logs, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'get_machine_deploy_log' or 'find_task_operation_log'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions retrieving logs for a specific job, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., job must be completed), or contrast with other log-related tools like 'get_machine_deploy_log' or 'list_change_order_job_logs'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what details are returned. For a tool 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just one sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. The bracketed '[Pipeline Management]' prefix provides helpful categorization without adding unnecessary length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 'details' are returned, potential error conditions, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. The combination of no annotations and no output schema means the description should do more heavy lifting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific pipeline run instance'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latest_pipeline_run' or 'list_pipeline_runs', which appear to serve related but distinct purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'get_latest_pipeline_run' or 'list_pipeline_runs'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the returned information takes. For a 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. The domain context marker '[Project Management]' is front-loaded, followed immediately by the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 about projects, whether there are access restrictions, or how to handle errors. Given the complexity of project management systems and the lack of structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return values and operational constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented as 'Organization ID' and 'Project unique identifier'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get information') and resource ('Yunxiao project'), making the purpose evident. It includes a domain context marker '[Project Management]' which adds specificity. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_application' or 'get_work_item' that also retrieve information about different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 are many sibling 'get_' tools (like 'get_application', 'get_work_item', 'search_projects'), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific project retrieval tool is appropriate versus those others. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what information is returned (metadata, configuration, statistics), whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. 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.
Conciseness4/5
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. The bracketed '[Code Management]' prefix provides helpful context, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating this context into the main statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 'information' is returned, the format of the response, or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools and lack of structured documentation, more detail is needed for adequate contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get information about') and resource ('a Codeup repository'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other repository-related tools like 'list_repositories' or 'get_branch', which would require more specific scope information to earn 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 sibling tools like 'list_repositories' (for listing multiple repositories) and 'get_branch' (for repository branch details), there's no indication whether this tool retrieves general repository metadata, configuration, or something else specific.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a read operation ('Get'), but fails to describe key traits like whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the essential action and resource. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 for a tool with three required parameters. It does not address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or return format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively in a real-world scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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, id, category). The description adds no additional semantic context, such as explaining the relationship between these parameters or providing examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but offers no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('list of work item types for a project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_work_item_type' (singular) or 'list_work_item_types', which might cause confusion about scope or usage differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'get_work_item_type' (singular) or 'list_work_item_types'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for application, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get workflow information') without describing what 'workflow information' includes, whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the response takes. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with 3 required parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. The bracketed context '[Project Management]' provides helpful domain framing. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by specifying what 'workflow information' entails.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with full parameter documentation in the schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to explain what 'workflow information' includes and the nature of the response. The description is minimally viable but leaves the agent guessing about the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get workflow information') and target resource ('for a specific work item type'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_work_item_type' or 'get_work_item_type_field_config' that might also retrieve work item type information, preventing 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 related to work items (e.g., 'get_work_item_type', 'get_work_item', 'list_work_item_types'), there's no indication of what distinguishes this workflow-focused retrieval from other work item type queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 list operation but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination), whether it's a read-only operation, or any performance characteristics. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the domain context and core purpose. Every element earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 doesn't explain what 'work item types' are in this context, what the return format looks like, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool selection and use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'organizationId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all work item types'), and includes the domain context '[Project Management]'. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_work_item_types' or 'get_work_item_types', which appear to serve similar purposes based on their names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_work_item_types' or 'get_work_item_types' from the sibling list. It also doesn't mention prerequisites or constraints beyond the implied organization context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination, which is useful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify the response format (e.g., list of objects with fields), error conditions (e.g., invalid organizationId), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit). For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating scope from behavior). It appropriately balances brevity with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the return value (critical for a list tool), error handling, authentication, and usage context. While it mentions pagination, it doesn't explain how results are structured or what 'application delivery' implies. For a tool with significant parameter complexity and no structured output, more descriptive guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 6 parameters (organizationId, pagination, perPage, orderBy, sort, nextToken). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond mentioning 'pagination' generically. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('applications'), and specifies the scope ('in an organization with pagination'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_application' (singular retrieval) and 'search_workitems' (different resource type), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_pipelines' or 'list_repositories' beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., needing organization access), exclusions, or comparisons to similar list operations like 'list_all_work_item_types' or 'search_projects'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtering options' but doesn't explain key behaviors: that this is a read-only operation (implied by 'list'), that it supports pagination (page/perPage), sorting (orderBy/sort), or search functionality. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a list operation, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. The bracketed '[Packages Management]' prefix adds some context but isn't strictly necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'artifacts' are in this context, what the output looks like, or how pagination/search/sorting work together. For a list tool with rich filtering capabilities, more context is needed to help an agent use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'filtering options' (which hints at search, orderBy, sort parameters) but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or usage. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List artifacts') and the resource ('in a package repository'), making the purpose understandable. It also mentions 'with filtering options' which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other list_* tools in the sibling set (like list_package_repositories or list_files), which prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (like needing to know organizationId, repoId, and repoType first), nor does it suggest when filtering is appropriate. The sibling tools include list_package_repositories, which might logically precede this tool, but no such relationship is indicated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how results are paginated (beyond schema hints), rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. This is efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, or output structure. For a list operation with multiple filtering/sorting options, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like organizationId and repositoryId). 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('branches in a Codeup repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (like list_repositories, list_commits, etc.), which would require mentioning what makes listing branches unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 repository access), exclusions, or how it differs from other listing tools in the sibling set. 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.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the basic action. It does not cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like, which are essential for a tool with 8 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose efficiently. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place, making it structurally optimal for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error handling, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to effectively invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating or detracting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('comments on a change request') with a domain context ('[Code Management]'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_work_item_comments' or 'create_change_request_comment', which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as filtering scenarios or prerequisites. It lacks any mention of when-not-to-use or sibling tool comparisons, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify output format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with three required parameters and no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5
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 functionality. There's no wasted text, and it immediately communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the output looks like, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a list operation in a code management context, more context about return values and usage would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('patch sets for a change request') with domain context ('[Code Management]'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_change_requests' or 'list_change_request_comments' by specifying patch sets. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 a valid change request ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from other list tools like 'list_change_requests' or 'list_change_request_comments' beyond the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'List commits' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling (implied by page/perPage parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted text, making it efficient for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, pagination behavior, error conditions, or usage context. For a complex list tool with rich filtering options, more guidance is needed to help an agent use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering capabilities ('List commits'), which the schema already covers with since, until, path, search, etc. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List commits') and target resource ('in a Codeup repository'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling list tools (like list_branches, list_files) beyond the 'commits' focus, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 available (e.g., get_commit, compare, search_workitems), there's no indication of when list_commits is appropriate versus other commit-related or search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output structure looks like (since no output schema exists). The description is too minimal for a tool with 5 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes helpful domain context ('[Code Management]'). Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'file tree' output looks like, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely returns hierarchical data, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List file tree') and resource ('from a Codeup repository'), with the '[Code Management]' prefix providing domain context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from other list_* tools in the sibling set, such as list_branches or list_repositories, which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose list_files over other file-related tools (like get_file_blobs) or other list operations. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that lists organizational data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of listing organizational departments, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, pagination), doesn't explain the optional 'parentId' parameter's effect, and provides no information on the return structure, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('organizationId' and 'parentId') with their types and requirements. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as explaining how 'parentId' might filter results hierarchically. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get the list') and resource ('departments in an organization'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_organization_department_info' or 'get_organization_department_ancestors', which appear to be related but more specific operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_organization_department_info' (which might retrieve details of a single department) or 'get_organization_department_ancestors' (which might fetch hierarchical data), 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination details (implied by page/perPage parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a tool with pagination parameters, this is a significant gap in 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of user objects), pagination behavior, or error conditions. With no annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description should compensate by providing more context about how the tool behaves and what results to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 three parameters (organizationId, page, perPage) with basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format expectations for organizationId or typical values for page/perPage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'list user members in an organization' clearly states the verb ('list') and resource ('user members in an organization'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_organization_members' or 'get_organization_member_info', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific list tool versus search or get operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'search_organization_members' or 'get_organization_member_info'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'filtering options' but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not stated), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning pagination or output format, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values, pagination behavior, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning 'filtering options', which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('package repositories in an organization'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (e.g., list_repositories, list_applications), which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'filtering options' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools present, there is no indication of when this specific listing tool is appropriate, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves history but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap, warranting a score of 2.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded and efficient, consisting of two clear sentences that state the purpose without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage hints, but as-is, it's well-structured and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, auth needs), usage guidelines, and doesn't compensate for the absence of an output schema by describing return values. For a history retrieval tool with multiple inputs, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any extra meaning or context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'pipelineId' and 'identifier'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description offers no additional parameter insights.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the execution history of a pipeline task' and 'Retrieve all execution records for a specific task in a pipeline.' It specifies the verb ('get', 'retrieve') and resource ('execution history', 'execution records'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_pipeline_jobs_by_category' or 'list_pipeline_runs', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'list_pipeline_jobs_by_category' or 'list_pipeline_runs', leaving the agent without context for selection. This lack of usage instructions results in a low score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool retrieves a list with filtering, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's paginated (implied by 'perPage' and 'page' parameters but not confirmed), rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or output format. For a read operation with 8 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a list of pipeline run instances') and includes key feature ('with filtering options'). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from capabilities.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address output structure, pagination behavior, error cases, or authentication needs. For a list operation with multiple filters, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively beyond basic parameter passing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'filtering options', which aligns with parameters like 'status', 'triggerMode', and time filters, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already explains. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a list') and resource ('pipeline run instances'), and mentions filtering options. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pipeline_run' (singular) and 'list_pipelines' (different resource), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_pipeline_job_historys' or 'get_latest_pipeline_run', which are related but not identical. The purpose is specific and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 organization and pipeline IDs), compare to siblings like 'get_pipeline_run' (for a single run) or 'list_pipeline_job_historys' (for job-level details), or specify contexts where filtering is essential. Usage is implied but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 returns all members or paginated results, what format the output takes, or any authentication/rate limit considerations. For a list operation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point - just two phrases. The bracketed category at the beginning provides some organizational context without being verbose. However, the second phrase could be more specific about what 'resource members' means in this system.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'resource member' in this system, what the output format looks like, or how this tool relates to other member-management tools in the sibling set. The description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 three parameters with their types and basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain the relationship between resourceType and resourceId, or provide examples of valid resource types beyond what's hinted in the schema. 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.
Purpose4/5
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 ('list of resource members'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list_* tools in the sibling set, nor does it specify what 'resource members' are in this context beyond what the parameters indicate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While there are sibling tools like 'list_organization_members' and 'get_organization_member_info', the description doesn't explain how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. The bracketed '[Resource Member Management]' suggests a category but offers no practical usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but fails to mention pagination details (implied by 'page' and 'perPage' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are critical for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, error cases), usage context, and output expectations, which are necessary for the agent to invoke it correctly in a project management setting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'status' filtering works in practice or default behaviors). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('sprints in a project'), providing a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_sprint' or 'list_workitems', which might have overlapping functionality in the same domain, so it doesn't fully achieve sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_sprint' or 'search_workitems', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 describes a read operation ('List'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning parameters or output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, potential errors) and output format, which are crucial for a tool with three parameters and no structured output guidance. This leaves gaps for the agent to understand full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (organizationId, workItemTypeId, relationType) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('work item types that can be related to a specific work item'), with a domain context '[Project Management]'. It's specific about what is being listed (related work item types) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_work_item_types' or 'list_all_work_item_types', which list work item types generally rather than those related to a specific work item.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 implies it's for listing related work item types, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, context, or compare to other listing tools in the sibling list, such as 'list_work_item_types' or 'search_workitems', leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'various filter conditions' but doesn't describe key behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on errors. For a search tool with 14 parameters, this lack of operational context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: '[Project Management] Search work items with various filter conditions.' It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary words, though the bracketed context could be integrated more smoothly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, error handling, or how results are structured. For a search tool in a rich sibling environment, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 14 parameters with detailed descriptions, enums, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search work items with various filter conditions.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('work items'), and the '[Project Management]' context helps. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_work_item' or 'list_work_item_comments,' which reduces clarity in distinguishing use cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., 'get_work_item' for single items, 'list_work_item_comments' for comments), there's no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'intelligently search' and natural language processing, which hints at smart behavior, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, if there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just one sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. The bracketed '[Pipeline Management]' provides quick context, and the example time references add clarity without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with six parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, output format, error handling, and usage distinctions from siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke this tool without guessing about its behavior or results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 six parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing the 'natural language time references' feature for the 'timeReference' parameter. However, it doesn't provide additional context for other parameters like 'organizationId' or 'statusList'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Intelligently search pipelines with natural language time references.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('pipelines'), and key capability ('natural language time references'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_pipelines' or 'search_workitems' beyond mentioning the natural language feature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance, only implying to use it when you need to search pipelines with natural language time references. It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_pipelines' or 'search_workitems', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is too vague 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.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to existing data. It mentions '[application delivery]' context but doesn't explain how that affects behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one phrase, which is efficient. However, the bracketed '[application delivery]' context feels tacked on rather than integrated, and the single-sentence approach leaves important behavioral information unaddressed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after the update, what gets returned, error conditions, or how this operation fits into the broader application delivery context. 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('application tag'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_app_tag_bind' or 'create_app_tag', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes this particular update operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 tool is appropriate versus creating a new tag, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'search_app_tags' or 'create_app_tag'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or response format. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—just one phrase in Chinese. While efficient, it might be too brief for non-native speakers, though it front-loads the core action. It could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, idempotency, or what the tool returns. For a tool that updates critical project management data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters like 'gmtStart' and 'gmtEnd' or clarifying the 'operatorId' behavior with personal tokens. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('更新' meaning 'update') and resource ('登记实际工时' meaning 'recorded actual effort/hours'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_effort_record' by focusing on updates rather than creation. However, it doesn't specify what exactly gets updated beyond the generic term 'effort record'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, conditions for use, or comparison with sibling tools like 'update_estimated_effort' or 'list_effort_records'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that modifies files in a repository, this lack of behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. The '[Code Management]' prefix adds useful context without verbosity. Every part of the description earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of updating a file in a repository (a mutation operation with 7 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'filePath' and 'content', or provide examples beyond the schema). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing file in a Codeup repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update_file' tools (like 'update_application', 'update_global_var', etc.) beyond the '[Code Management]' prefix, which is a minor gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 repository access), compare it to sibling tools like 'create_file' or 'delete_file', or specify scenarios where it's appropriate (e.g., editing code vs. configuration). This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing content not mentioned. The '[application delivery]' context is helpful but insufficient 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence with zero waste. The description is front-loaded with the core action and resource, though it could benefit from more detail given the mutation nature.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (overwrite vs. merge), success/failure behavior, or return values. The '[application delivery]' context helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 semantics beyond what's in the schema (organizationId, name, content array with key/value/description, fromRevisionSha, message). 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('global variable group') with the context domain '[application delivery]'. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_global_var' by specifying update vs. create, but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_variable_group' or 'update_app_variable_groups'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing variable group), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar update tools in the sibling list like 'update_variable_group'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation operation ('Update') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The mention of updatable elements ('YAML, stages, jobs, etc.') adds some context, but critical mutation details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences are relevant: the first states what the tool does, and the second adds usage context. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral implications (e.g., side effects, error handling), doesn't explain the return value, and provides minimal guidance on usage. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, it should do more to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying 'content' relates to 'pipeline YAML' and 'name' is part of the update, but doesn't provide syntax, format, or constraints beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update'), resource ('an existing pipeline in Yunxiao'), and key updatable elements ('pipeline YAML, stages, jobs, etc.'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_pipeline_from_description' by specifying it's for existing pipelines, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools like 'update_application'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions 'Use this to update pipeline YAML, stages, jobs, etc.' but offers no context on when to choose this over alternatives like 'update_application' or 'update_app_orchestration', nor any prerequisites or constraints beyond needing an existing pipeline. No explicit when-not-to-use or comparison information is included.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'Transfer resource owner,' implying a mutation operation, but fails to specify critical details such as required permissions, whether the change is reversible, effects on existing access controls, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, consisting of a single phrase that conveys the core action. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the bracketed '[Resource Member Management]' adds minimal value without further explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, and the tool's mutation nature (ownership transfer), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral implications, error handling, or result format, making it incomplete for safe operation in a complex system with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four required parameters (organizationId, resourceType, resourceId, newOwnerId). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on resourceType values. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Transfer resource owner') and resource ('resource'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_resource_member' or 'create_resource_member', which appear related to resource member management but serve different functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), scenarios where ownership transfer is appropriate, or how it differs from similar tools like 'update_resource_member' for modifying other member attributes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Update' implies a mutation, the description doesn't specify what happens when fields are omitted (partial vs. full updates), whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just two short phrases in brackets. Every word earns its place: the domain context '[Project Management]' and the core action 'Update an existing sprint'. There's zero wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, how partial updates work, what happens to existing data, or what the tool returns. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 9 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing sprint'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from 'create_sprint' by specifying it's for existing sprints, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_work_item' or 'update_application'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (like needing to identify the sprint first), when not to use it, or how it differs from other update operations in the sibling tool list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'Update a work item' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, side effects, error conditions, or response format. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one phrase, front-loaded with the context and action. There is no wasted text, making it efficient for quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters with nested objects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough information for an AI agent to understand how to properly invoke this tool, what to expect in return, or the implications of the update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 67% schema description coverage (parameters like 'organizationId' and 'workItemId' are documented, but nested fields lack descriptions), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap by explaining the 'updateWorkItemFields' object or its nested properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a work item'), and the '[Project Management]' context helps scope it. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_application' or 'update_sprint', which are also update operations 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 an existing work item), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'create_work_item' or 'get_work_item'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool searches for projects but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: whether it's read-only (implied by 'search'), pagination behavior (though parameters exist), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (no output schema). For a search tool with 16 parameters and 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the use cases are somewhat redundant (they restate the search intent). It's concise (three sentences), but the structure could be improved by integrating use cases more naturally or adding critical context. It's adequate but not optimally structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, error handling, pagination details (beyond parameters), and how to interpret results. For a search tool in a project management context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 16 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'scenarioFilter' relates to the use cases). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of complex parameters like 'advancedConditions'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for Yunxiao Project List' with the verb 'search' and resource 'Project List'. It distinguishes projects from repositories, adding domain context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like 'search_workitems' or 'search_app_tags', which keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides two use cases ('Query projects I am involved in' and 'Query projects I have created'), which imply usage scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_project' for a single project or other search tools), and doesn't mention prerequisites like needing organizationId. This is adequate but has gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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 token-based authentication and precedence in user ID absence, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and a key behavioral note. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundant information. However, the second sentence could be slightly clearer in its phrasing, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic context but is incomplete. It explains what the tool does and a token-based constraint, but doesn't cover return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. This is adequate for a simple read tool but lacks depth for full agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's context. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get information about the current user based on the token.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current user'), and mentions the token-based authentication context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_organizations' or 'get_organization_member_info', which is why 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: 'In the absence of an explicitly specified user ID, this result will take precedence.' This implies a context where user identification is needed, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_organization_member_info_by_user_id' or other user-related tools. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it 'gets' content without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. It mentions 'Codeup repository' for context but lacks operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—front-loaded with domain context and core action. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a read operation. It specifies the tool's purpose but lacks details on output format, errors, or integration context, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'file content' retrieval, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get file content') and target resource ('from a Codeup repository'), with the '[Code Management]' prefix providing domain context. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_file' or 'list_files' (which exist in the sibling list), missing explicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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' (if it exists) or 'list_files' (in siblings). The description implies it's for retrieving specific file content but lacks explicit 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get information about the latest pipeline run', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific information is returned (e.g., status, logs, metadata). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 required parameters, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits and return values, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in more complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('organizationId' and 'pipelineId'). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these IDs relate to the 'latest' run or providing examples. Given the high schema coverage, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('latest pipeline run'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pipeline_run' or 'list_pipeline_runs', which might retrieve different scopes of pipeline run information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 are multiple sibling tools related to pipelines (e.g., 'get_pipeline_run', 'list_pipeline_runs', 'get_pipeline'), but the description doesn't specify that this tool is for the 'latest' run only, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves ancestors, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it returns a list, tree structure, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail on behavior 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or usage context, which would be helpful for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both required parameters (organizationId and id). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('ancestors of a department in an organization'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_organization_department_info' or 'list_organization_departments', which could provide related department information, so it falls short of 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 valid department and organization IDs, or suggest related tools for different queries, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the tool is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm this or disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with three required parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the domain context ('[Project Management]') and core action ('Get field configuration'), followed by the target resource. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (three required IDs, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, or output details. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must guess at safety, response format, and error handling. The description meets the bare minimum for a read operation but doesn't provide enough context for confident use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (organizationId, projectId, workItemTypeId) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., hierarchical nesting) or provide usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get field configuration') and target resource ('for a specific work item type'), with a domain context hint ('[Project Management]'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'get_work_item_type' (which likely returns type metadata, not field configuration) and 'get_work_item' (which returns work item instances). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_work_item_types' or 'list_work_item_types' which list types rather than field configurations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 organization/project/type IDs), when not to use it (e.g., for listing all types), or direct alternatives like 'get_work_item_type' (for type metadata) or 'list_work_item_types' (for enumerating types). 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.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a read operation ('Get a list'), which is clear, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens with no results. For a tool with 9 parameters and 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get a list of pipelines'). It includes a category tag ('[Pipeline Management]') and key feature ('with filtering options') without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details, making it minimally viable but incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'filtering options', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's already covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get a list') and resource ('pipelines in an organization'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'smart_list_pipelines' or 'list_pipeline_runs', which prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with 'with filtering options' but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'smart_list_pipelines' or other list tools, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that a Repository is 'distinct from a Project', which adds useful context, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), doesn't mention pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clarifying note and a use case. There's minimal waste, though the bracketed '[Code Management]' adds little value. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (what the list contains, format), error handling, authentication needs, and how it interacts with sibling tools. The use case is too vague to compensate for these gaps, making it insufficient for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 7 parameters with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get the CodeUp Repository List') and resource ('Repository'), with a brief definition of what a Repository is. It distinguishes from Projects, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_repository' (singular) or 'search_projects', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific list tool versus alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a 'Use Case: View my repositories', which provides implied context for when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over other list/search tools (e.g., 'search_projects' or 'get_repository'), and doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication or organization context. The guidance is present but minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but lacks details on permissions, pagination, rate limits, or response format. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List service connections in an organization') and adds a brief qualifier ('with filtering options'). There is no wasted wording or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple list with filtering), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response structure, error handling) that would be helpful for an agent, especially without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (organizationId and serviceConnectionType with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('service connections in an organization'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (e.g., list_applications, list_branches), which prevents 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'with filtering options', which implies usage for filtered listing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools or search functions). No context on prerequisites or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List'), potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, or error conditions. The description carries the full burden but adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List comments') and includes the resource scope ('for a specific work item'), making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the resource but lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral traits. Given the simple nature of the tool (list comments) and full schema coverage, it meets basic needs but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context (e.g., explaining what 'workItemId' refers to or how pagination works in practice). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('comments for a specific work item'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_work_item_comment' or 'list_change_request_comments' by specifying 'work item' comments, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools (e.g., 'list_work_item_types').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 a valid work item ID), exclusions, or comparisons with similar tools like 'search_workitems' or 'get_work_item', leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could affect agent reliability.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 functionality. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (simple list operation), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the what and where but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, error cases) and comparative usage guidelines. For a tool with no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but it meets the bare minimum for clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (organizationId, projectId, category). The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('work item types in a project space'), with a domain context hint ('[Project Management]'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_work_item_types' or 'list_all_work_item_types', but the scope ('in a project space') provides some implicit distinction. The purpose is specific and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'get_work_item_types' or 'list_all_work_item_types' is provided. The description implies usage for listing within a project space, but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the returned data will have. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to properly use this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 minimally adequate but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally mention what format the organizations list returns in (e.g., array of objects with specific fields) or any authentication requirements, but it doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already fully documents this. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('list of organizations the current user belongs to'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'get_current_organization_info' or 'list_organization_members' that might retrieve related but different data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'get_current_organization_info' and 'list_organization_members' available, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 6-month time interval constraint, which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (pagination, format), or any rate limits. For a tool with 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two parts: the core purpose and a constraint. Both sentences earn their place. However, the structure could be improved by front-loading the most critical information more clearly, and the Chinese-only text might limit accessibility in some contexts.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and one constraint. It's minimally adequate for a read operation but lacks information about return format, error conditions, authentication requirements, and how it differs from similar tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain what data is returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 three parameters (organizationId, startDate, endDate) with their formats. The description adds the constraint that 'end and start time interval cannot exceed 6 months,' which provides additional semantic context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide usage examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取用户的实际工时明细' (get user's actual working hour details). It specifies the verb (get/obtain) and resource (actual working hour details). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_effort_records' or 'create_effort_record' beyond the 'current user' aspect implied in the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context with the time interval constraint ('结束时间和开始时间的间隔不能大于6个月' - end and start time interval cannot exceed 6 months), which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_effort_records' or provide clear exclusion criteria beyond the time constraint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'currently only supports DEPLOY category', which is a behavioral constraint. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get' but not explicit), potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. For a tool with 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical constraint. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it's efficiently sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and a key constraint (DEPLOY-only), but lacks details on behavioral aspects like read-only nature, error handling, or return values. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to compensate, but it meets a basic threshold.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 three parameters (organizationId, pipelineId, category) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the category constraint ('currently only supports DEPLOY'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does most of the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get pipeline execution tasks by category' (verb+resource). It specifies the resource type ('pipeline execution tasks') and operation ('get'), which is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_pipeline_job_historys' or 'list_pipeline_runs', though the 'by category' aspect provides some distinction. It's not tautological with the name, which adds 'list' vs 'get' nuance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Currently only supports DEPLOY category', which suggests when to use it (for DEPLOY tasks) and hints at limitations. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'list_pipeline_job_historys' or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the action is an update operation, implying mutation. The description doesn't address permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing bindings not mentioned. However, the input schema description provides crucial behavioral context about how tagNames parameter works (ignoring non-existent tags, clearing when empty).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just 7 words including the bracketed context. Every word contributes meaning: domain context, action, and target. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions. The structure is front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 minimally adequate. The schema provides good parameter documentation, but the description lacks crucial context about behavioral implications, error conditions, and what the tool returns. The agent knows what the tool does but not the full consequences of using it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, with no value added by the description text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and target ('application tag bindings'), with the bracketed context '[application delivery]' providing domain specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_app_tag' (which likely modifies tag definitions rather than bindings) and 'update_application' (which modifies app properties). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the description text itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With many sibling tools in the application management domain, the agent receives no help in selecting this specific binding update tool over other update operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include. For a 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 required parameters, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks context on authentication, error handling, or return format. For a read operation, this is a moderate gap but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 'id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying these are needed to identify the specific work item type. 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.
Purpose4/5
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 ('details of a specific work item type'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_work_item_types' by specifying retrieval of a single type rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_work_item_type_field_config' or 'get_work_item_workflow', which target related but different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when details of a specific work item type are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_work_item_types' (for listing all types) or other 'get_work_item_*' tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication dependency ('based on the token') and precedence behavior, which are useful. However, it doesn't describe the return format, potential errors, or any rate limits or permissions required, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a tool that likely returns sensitive user/organization data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds important behavioral context about precedence. There's minimal waste, though the phrasing could be slightly more polished (e.g., 'takes precedence' is somewhat vague).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the what and some context, but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or how the 'precedence' works practically. For a tool that likely returns structured user/org data, more output guidance would be helpful despite the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space on parameter details, though it could mention that no inputs are required. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description focuses on purpose rather than redundant parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('information about the current user and organization'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_current_user' by including organization information, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The phrase 'based on the token' adds useful authentication context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'based on the token' and mentions precedence when no organization ID is specified, which provides some guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_user' or 'get_user_organizations', nor does it provide clear exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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.
Conciseness3/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.
Parameters3/5
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.
Purpose5/5
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.
Usage Guidelines5/5
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.
Behavior4/5
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.
Conciseness3/5
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.
Completeness5/5
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.
Parameters4/5
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.
Purpose5/5
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.
Usage Guidelines5/5
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.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

alibabacloud-devops-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![alibabacloud-devops-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yjiace/alibabacloud-devops-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yjiace/alibabacloud-devops-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![alibabacloud-devops-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yjiace/alibabacloud-devops-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yjiace/alibabacloud-devops-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yjiace/alibabacloud-devops-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server