pipehero

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what is returned (full request and response including headers and body), which goes beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is a single, tightly packed sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and scope. No wasted words; every part contributes to 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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return value (full request/response with headers and body) and the uniqueness (one webhook by id). It does not explain how to obtain the id or the subdomain, but given sibling list_requests, this is acceptable.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'by id' but does not explain the format or role of 'id' or 'subdomain'. This leaves the agent without enough semantic detail for the parameters.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the action (Get), the specific resource (full request and response with headers and body), and the scope (one captured webhook by id). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_requests, which lists multiple items, and replay_request, which resends a webhook.

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

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

The description implies when to use this tool: when you need a single captured webhook's full details by its id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer usage.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds behavioral detail by specifying the returned fields (id, method, path, status, bodies) and the 'recent' qualifier, which sets expectations about scope and output.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys purpose and return fields.

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

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

The description covers purpose, scope, and return fields. With no output schema and only one parameter, this is largely sufficient. It could mention pagination or limits, but 'recent' hints at a bounded set.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explicitly link the 'subdomain' parameter to the tunnel mentioned. However, the phrase 'for a tunnel' implies the subdomain identifies which tunnel, providing some semantic context.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists recent webhooks/requests captured for a tunnel, specifying the action (list) and the resource (captured requests). It also lists the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_request (single) and list_tunnels.

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

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

The description provides clear context: use it to list recent captured requests for a tunnel. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to guide tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping to the user's own tunnels and the 'currently online' status, giving modest extra context beyond the structured annotations, though no rate limits or auth details are disclosed.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and resource, earning its place with zero wasted words.

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

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

For a simple, parameterless, read-only list tool, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what the user gets (tunnels plus online status). The lack of an output schema or pagination details is not a major gap given the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no parameter information needed, and the description correctly implies that no inputs are required to list tunnels.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('the user's Pipehero tunnels') plus the output detail ('whether each is currently online'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling request/webhook 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 makes clear it is for listing the user's tunnels and their online status, providing unmistakable context for use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are all request-focused, so the usage context is evident.

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?

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the destination ('user's localhost') and the required tunnel CLI, which are not in the annotations. It doesn't detail potential side effects, but the key prerequisites are covered.

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, focused sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and includes a relevant parenthetical about the CLI requirement.

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

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

The description covers the core purpose and a prerequisite, making it minimally usable. However, it lacks detail on parameter meanings (id/subdomain) and doesn't describe expected outcomes or side effects, especially given the destructiveHint. It's adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps.

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

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

The schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the 'id' or 'subdomain' parameters. While one could infer that id identifies the webhook and subdomain the tunnel, it's not explicitly stated. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: replaying a captured webhook to the user's localhost. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_requests and send_test_webhook by specifying the replay action and destination. The prerequisite about the tunnel CLI adds useful scope.

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

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

The description provides clear context: the tool is for replaying a captured webhook to localhost, and it notes a key prerequisite ('tunnel CLI must be running'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as comparing to send_test_webhook for new webhooks.

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?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing the localhost target, the running tunnel CLI prerequisite, and the Pro plan requirement. It doesn't elaborate on side effects, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this additional context is meaningful and not contradictory.

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

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

The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states purpose and a key prerequisite; the second covers parameter options. No redundant words, and it is front-loaded with the action verb. Every sentence contributes.

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

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

The description covers invocation context (tunnel, Pro plan), parameter options (provider list, event, body), and the target. However, it omits any description of the subdomain parameter and does not mention response format or error behavior, though no output schema exists. For a moderately complex tool, it is mostly complete but not fully.

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

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

Schema coverage is low (25%), so the description compensates by enumerating valid provider values, explaining that 'event' provides a realistic sample payload, and clarifying 'body' as a custom override. However, the required 'subdomain' parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, which is a significant semantic gap for a required field.

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 function: 'Send a generated test webhook to the user's localhost,' which is a specific verb+resource+target. It differentiates from siblings like get_request, list_requests, and replay_request by emphasizing generation and sending of a test webhook. The provider list adds concrete scope.

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

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

The description provides clear usage context by stating the prerequisite ('the tunnel CLI must be running') and explaining two usage modes: provider/event for realistic payloads or custom body. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses that the change 'Persists on the tunnel' and that it can be reverted by passing enabled:false. It also explains the effect (extends timeout from 30 to 120 seconds), adding meaningful behavioral context that annotations do not provide.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes a concrete example and revert instruction. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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

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

For a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, effect, persistence, and how to revert. It lacks an explicit statement about the return value, but given the simplicity and the presence of sibling context, this is a minor gap.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'enabled' parameter by noting that false reverts the timeout, and implies that 'subdomain' identifies the target tunnel. However, subdomain is not explicitly described, and the exact relationship between the parameters and the timeout change is only partially filled in.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Opt a tunnel into a 120-second ingress timeout' and clearly identifies the resource (tunnel) and the change (timeout increase). It distinguishes from sibling tools which all deal with requests/webhooks rather than tunnel configuration, so there is no ambiguity.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use: 'for tool calls that legitimately run long, e.g. an MCP server exposed through the tunnel.' It also explains how to revert via 'pass enabled: false to revert to the 30-second default.' While it doesn't name alternative tools or give negative exclusions, the context is clear and actionable.

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

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value with plan restrictions and disable behavior. It does not contradict annotations and gives practical context beyond the structured data.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and includes only essential details (plan requirement and how to disable). There is no redundant language, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.

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

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

For a simple setter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and plan constraints but omits explanation of the subdomain parameter and any side effects or persistence details. This is adequate but not fully complete for a low-coverage schema.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains 'enabled' (with 'pass enabled: false') but fails to describe the 'subdomain' parameter, leaving a required parameter unexplained. This is a significant gap in a low-coverage situation.

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 ('Opt a tunnel into WebSocket passthrough') and specifies the resource (a tunnel) and its purpose (relaying WebSocket connections to localhost). It effectively distinguishes from request-focused siblings by focusing on tunnel configuration, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides clear usage context by mentioning the plan requirement ('Pro/Team plan required to enable') and how to disable ('pass enabled: false'), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. This is adequate guidance for when to apply the tool.

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