WeInc

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

Beyond the annotations, the description provides no behavioral context: it does not mention uniqueness of email, whether plan_id is evaluated, notifications, billing side effects, or failure behavior. It only restates the literal action with a small scoping qualifier.

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 one efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the 'end-customer' qualifier adds clarity beyond the tool title. It is concise, though extremely sparse and does not carry semantic load for the parameters.

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

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

With a bare schema, no output schema, and a one-sentence description, the tool does not give enough context for correct use. It lacks guidance on what the created result is, how plan_id should be sourced, and what happens behaviorally when the client is created.

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 does not explain the meaning or constraints of name, email, company, or plan_id. An agent has to guess why plan_id matters and whether it must reference an existing plan.

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 and resource: 'Create a client (end-customer) for the org.' The parenthetical disambiguates 'client' from other meanings, and the 'for the org' scope makes the target membership clear. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools by naming the entity being acted on.

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 this is used when creating a client, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it, prerequisites like choosing a plan, or how it relates to alternatives such as create_project or list_clients. The usage context is present but only implied.

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 a mutation (readOnlyHint: false), so the description is not the only source for additional effect. The description adds that the mutation is a project creation for an existing client's email, but it does disclose behavioral expectations such as idempotency, success response, whether an unknown client email causes failure, or whether all required fields are validated. This is useful but not richly transparent.

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

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

A single short sentence with a clear action, target scope, and identifier format. There is no redundant restatement of the title or schema, and the key information is effectively front-loaded.

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

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

With no output schema, no safety annotation describing response or return contract, and a required flow with a client-relationship, the description needs to explain enough to let an agent know what happens on success, whether a client must already exist, and how template_id relates to project creation. The description is minimal and raises valueably but does not supply those additional conditions or the success contract.

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

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

The description gives semantic to client_email by saying client selected by email, but schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does nothing to explain name, description, or template_id. The required param name is not mentioned in description at all, so an agent gets only a partial hint and has to infer the meaning of the other parameters from their names.

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 burst description is clear that the tool creates a project on behalf of an org client, like the client is identified by email. This separates it from create_client and update_project by it: create new project, by 'client email', and differentiates from typed with client. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for compare, and it lacks details on what project fields are set, so slightly below a 5.

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 phrase 'for one of the org's clients' implies this tool should be used when a client already exists and we want to create a project, as opposed to client-related operations like create_client. However it does not explicitly state when not to use it or when to prefer create_client/list_templates/update_project, so the routing guidance remains implicit.

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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already in annotations, the description's job is to add non-safety behavior, and it does add one: results are 'aggregated' rather than raw records. However, it does not disclose how the aggregation behaves with omitted days, what the output shape is, or what the default scope semantics are when project_id is omitted. This is a net some value beyond the annotations, but not a rich behavioral profile.

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 with no filler or repetition; the core scope is front-loaded. It earns a high mark for compactness. Small deduction because it's a noun phrase rather than a complete actionable sentence, and the time-window context is absent.

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 tool with two optional parameters and read-only annotations, the description is close to sufficient: it defines the output area ('aggregated analytics') and supports an optional project scoping. The primary gap is that neither the schema nor the description clarifies the days parameter's purpose or the default behavior, and there is no indication of the return shape (no output schema exists). The description could be stronger without needing length.

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 carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It does hint at project_id via 'optionally one project,' which is useful. But the days parameter is entirely unexplained in both the schema and description, even though its min/max (1–365) suggests a time window that the agent would otherwise have to guess. With half the parameters undocumented, the description only partially compensates.

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 identifies a specific resource ('analytics') and its scope ('for the org, optionally one project'), which is distinct from the sibling tools' concerns (clients, projects, plans, templates, previews). It lacks an explicit verb in the sentence, though the name and title supply 'get'. This is clear enough, but it does not actively name siblings or contrast itself, so I do not give a 5.

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 the tool: for organization-level aggregate metrics, with project_id as an optional filter. It gives no guide on when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer for event-level data, a plain project retrieval (get_project), or a list of projects. Usage is implied through scope language rather than explicitly stated.

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 supply readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the phrase 'published/preview URLs' — it omits whether both published and preview URLs are returned, if the URLs can expire, or what output shape the agent should expect.

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?

One very short sentence communicates the full purpose with no filler. It is appropriately sized for such a simple read-only getter.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter getter with read-only annotations, so the core invocation contract is complete: pass a projectId. The only meaningful omission is the return value shape, but the description's phrase 'URLs' gives enough orientation for an agent to understand what the result represents.

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%, but the single required parameter 'projectId' is self-descriptive and aligns with the description's phrase 'for a project.' The description does not add information about ID format or how the parameter relates to the output, though the param name carries most of the needed meaning.

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

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

The description states a concrete operation — verb 'get' and a specific resource 'published/preview URLs' scoped to a project, aligning with the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_project, but the URL-specific focus makes the purpose reasonably clear.

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 says what to call but not when to call it. It does not explain how this differs from get_project or get_analytics, or suggest when an agent should choose this tool over those alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the behavior is understood as a safe read. The description adds the scoped behavior of returning a single project, though it doesn't disclose error cases, missing ids, or permission behavior, which is acceptable for a simple lookup.

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, tight sentence that contains the verb, resource, and discriminator. No words are wasted and the key information appears immediately.

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

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

For a one-parameter, read-only operation with no output schema, the description is sufficient for a correct invocation. It does not describe response shape or not-found behavior, but that level of detail is not essential for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry meaning for the lone projectId parameter. The phrase 'by id' tells the agent that projectId serves as the identifier, which adds real interpretability beyond the raw schema. It stops short of specifying format or source of the id, but for one simple parameter this is strong enough.

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 and resource: 'Get a single project by id.' The 'by id' phrase clearly distinguishes this from list_projects, create_project, and update_project.

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 wording clearly implies the tool is for retrieving one specific known project using its id, which is enough to guide an agent's selection. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the sibling names and the qualifier are unambiguous.

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 the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and non-destructive, reducing the burden on the description. The description adds the org-scope context but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as pagination or lack of filtering. It does not contradict the annotations, and a score of 3 reflects the limited added value beyond 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 short sentence that states the operation and scope with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, and the core action is front-loaded.

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

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

For a simple, parameterless, read-only listing operation, the description is complete. It identifies the resource, the scope, and what the tool does, and the annotations handle the safety profile. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain any parameter meanings. With 100% schema coverage and no params, the baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description's resource naming sufficiently aligns with the empty schema.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('clients'), and adds the scope 'org's' to clearly identify which clients. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_projects and create_client, so an agent can tell them apart from the description alone.

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

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

The description implies usage: use this tool when you need to list clients belonging to the org. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when the list may be empty or if there is another client-related tool for specific scenarios. This is adequate but not explicit.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only the scope of the listing ('org's client-facing'); it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or return format, but those are not critical for a trivial read-only list.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words; 'org' and 'client-facing' both add meaningful scope, and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete, but it does not explain what 'plans' are or how they differ from the sibling list_templates. An agent might still be uncertain about which listing tool to select.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add on parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 an explicit verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('the org's client-facing plans'), so it moves beyond a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_templates, which could be ambiguous in a plans/templates context.

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

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

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_templates, list_clients, or list_projects. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or routing hints.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no safety clarification is needed. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: results are org-scoped, paginated, and filterable. It does not disclose pagination defaults or accepted filter values, but the annotation safety profile lowers the bar.

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 filler. It states the resource, scope, and key behavioral qualifiers efficiently. Every word adds information value.

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-only list operation with no required parameters, the description is sufficiently complete to allow safe invocation. The main gaps are pagination defaults, possible status values, and response content shape, but the optional parameters and read-only annotations reduce the risk of an agent making a harmful or confusing call.

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 clarity. 'Paginated, filterable' gives a useful high-level grouping for the four optional parameters, indirectly implying limit/offset as pagination and status/client_id as filters. However, it does not name which parameters map to which behavior, describe status values, or explain defaults, so the parameter semantics remain partially inferred.

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 and resource: 'List builder projects for the org.' It also signals that the operation is paginated and filterable, which helps distinguish it from single-project getters like get_project. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the plural resource and collection framing are clear.

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 the usage context: listing multiple builder projects with optional filtering/pagination. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_project, create_project, update_project, or list_clients, and it gives no exclusions or fallback guidance.

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

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

Annotations already communicate that the operation is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds only the org scoping, but does not describe return format, pagination, ordering, or any other behavioral detail beyond what annotations already convey.

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 short sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and appropriate for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description is essentially complete: it identifies the resource and scope. The lack of an output schema makes return details implicit, but the simple tool contract does not demand deeper context.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information for the description to compensate for. The schema is fully sufficient at 100% coverage, and the no-parameter baseline is 4.

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 and object: 'List' plus 'templates,' and scopes them to 'the org's.' This makes the core purpose clear. Resource-name separation from sibling list tools is implied but not explicitly stated, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus list_clients or list_projects. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned, so an agent must infer all usage context from the tool name and one-line description.

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

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

The annotations already indicate this is not read-only and is not marked destructive, and the description does not contradict them. It adds no detail beyond describing what fields are updated, such as whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether it is a partial update, or what the response looks like.

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 one short sentence and immediately communicates the operation and its key targets. Every word adds value, and there is no filler or unnecessary duplication of the schema.

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?

This is a simple tool with no output schema, no enums, and no nested objects, so the description is close to adequate. However, important operational details remain implicit, such as how projectId is required, possible status values, and whether this is a merge-style update or a full replacement.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry more weight. It does list name, description, and status as updateable fields, but it does not clarify the projectId requirement, valid status values, or how the optional fields interact with each other.

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

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

The description states a clear action ('update a project') and identifies the exact fields that can be changed: name, description, or status. It is easily distinguished from get/create/list siblings at the verb level, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those 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 tool name and description together imply it should be used when an existing project's name, description, or status needs to change. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of create_project/get_project/list_projects' guidance or any mention of when not to use it.

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