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 ('Delete') but fails to add context beyond that, such as whether the deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the key action and resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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

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

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address critical aspects like confirmation of deletion, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe and effective use.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('publicId' and 'assetId') documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the difference between these IDs or usage scenarios. Baseline 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.

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a file (asset) from Cloudinary'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'find-assets', 'get-asset', 'get-usage', and 'upload' which perform different operations. It precisely communicates the tool's function without redundancy.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it's for permanent deletion, when to choose 'publicId' vs 'assetId', or if there are prerequisites like authentication. It lacks context on exclusions or comparisons with siblings, offering only the basic purpose.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching with a query expression but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., list of assets, metadata), pagination behavior (implied by 'nextCursor' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a search tool with 6 parameters.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the essential action ('search for existing files') and includes the key constraint ('with a query expression'). There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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

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

For a search tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, pagination mechanics (despite a 'nextCursor' parameter), or error handling. The agent would lack sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond mentioning 'query expression' (which aligns with the 'expression' parameter). This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('existing files (assets) in Cloudinary'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-asset' (which likely retrieves a specific asset) or 'upload' (which creates new assets), missing full sibling differentiation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'find-assets' over 'get-asset' for retrieving specific assets or how it relates to 'delete-asset' or 'upload'. 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.

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'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned details. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does ('Get the details of a specific file (asset)'), making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with zero wasted information.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, how results are structured, or behavioral traits like error cases. For a retrieval tool with multiple optional parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying it retrieves 'details' of an asset. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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.

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 file (asset)'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find-assets' (which likely lists multiple assets) or 'delete-asset' (which removes assets), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific retrieval tool.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an asset ID), compare it to 'find-assets' for searching multiple assets, or specify scenarios where this detailed retrieval is preferred over other operations like 'upload' or 'delete-asset'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the report includes various metrics but fails to specify critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or how data is formatted. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists key metrics without unnecessary words. It could be slightly improved by structuring usage guidelines, but it earns its place by being clear and direct, with no wasted information.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (reporting multiple metrics) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain the report's format, whether it's aggregated or detailed, and any behavioral aspects like permissions or data freshness. The description only covers what the tool does, not how it behaves or what it returns, leaving 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.

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with a well-described 'date' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why the date range is limited to the last 3 months or how the default current date affects the report. It compensates slightly by implying the report covers multiple metrics, but this is not parameter-related.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('report on the status of your product environment usage'), listing key metrics like storage, credits, and bandwidth. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete-asset' or 'upload' by focusing on reporting rather than asset management, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential reporting tools.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, frequency, or scenarios where this report is needed, such as monitoring limits or billing. With siblings like 'find-assets' that might overlap in data retrieval, no explicit distinctions are made.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. It states the tool uploads a file but doesn't cover critical traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a URL or ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

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

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, return values, or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic purpose.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'source' is required, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline of 3, as the description doesn't compensate but the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('upload') and resource ('a file (asset) to Cloudinary'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like delete-asset or find-assets by focusing on creation rather than deletion or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get-asset or get-usage, 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.

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), when not to use it (e.g., for updates vs. initial uploads), or how it differs from sibling tools like find-assets for locating existing files. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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