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 says "Show an App's deployment history" without disclosing side effects, permissions, error behavior, or output format. For a read-only tool, this is minimal but lacks depth.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place.

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

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

The tool is simple with a low complexity, but the description lacks detail on when to use it or what the return values look like. Without annotations or output schema, the description does not fully contextualize the tool's role among siblings.

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

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

The schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (appIdentifier and env), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information. The schema descriptions are adequate, though "Environment to interact with" is somewhat vague.

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 "Show" and a clear resource "an App's deployment history," which precisely states the tool's function. It also distinguishes from siblings like modal_app_logs (logs) and modal_app_list (list apps) by focusing specifically on deployment history.

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 exclusions, prerequisites, or compare to sibling tools. The one-sentence description only states what it does, 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the transparency burden. It discloses the status categories but fails to mention behavior regarding the optional env parameter, pagination, output format, or the meaning of 'recently stopped.' This leaves significant behavioral details undisclosed.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, with no wasted words. It effectively adds the status scope without redundancy or verbosity.

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

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

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, but the description does not mention what the list returns or how env affects results. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is slightly incomplete for guiding a new agent, but the basic purpose is adequately captured.

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 only parameter env is fully described in the schema as 'Environment to interact with,' achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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' plus resource 'Apps' and defines the scope with three statuses, clearly conveying the function and distinguishing it from sibling tools like modal_app_logs or modal_app_stop. The plural 'Apps' and status set make the purpose unambiguous even without explicitly naming alternatives.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as modal_app_history or modal_app_logs. The intended use is only implied by the action 'List Apps' with specific statuses, so the agent must infer its appropriateness rather than being told.

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 only states the core function and does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, whether pagination exists, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal but 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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, but slightly under-specified in that it provides no contextual details. Still, it is not verbose or poorly structured.

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

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

The tool is simple and all parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks contextual details such as the distinction from container-level logs, expected response structure, or common use cases. The lack of an output schema increases the need for such context, which is not provided.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema itself fully documents all parameters (e.g., appIdentifier, env, tail, since, source).

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 'Fetch logs for an App' clearly identifies the action (fetch) and the resource (App), distinguishing it from container-level tools like modal_container_logs. It is specific and not a tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself in the text.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as modal_container_logs. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to 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.

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

The description only says 'redeploy,' which is a verb already implied by the tool name. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the current version is stopped, whether a new deployment is created, or if there are side effects or permission requirements. With no annotations to fill the gap, this is a serious deficiency for a mutating 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, grammatically correct sentence with no redundant words. However, it is too sparse to be genuinely useful; it lacks additional context that could be provided without becoming verbose. It is concise but under-specified.

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 and no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of explaining what the tool does, what it returns, and what happens during rollback. It fails to mention any of these, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and consequences.

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 provides full descriptions for all 3 parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate without further elaboration in the description.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (redeploy) and target (previous version of an App), making it obvious that this is a rollback operation. It distinguishes itself from most siblings like modal_app_stop or modal_app_logs, though it does not explicitly differentiate from modal_app_rollover.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as modal_app_rollover or modal_app_history. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion scenarios mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.

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 the intended outcome without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the app is stopped, whether downtime occurs, how the strategy parameter affects the rollout, or any permissions required. This is insufficient for a mutating operational tool.

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

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

A single, focused sentence that conveys the core functionality with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 essential purpose but lacks details about the rollover process, the meaning of the strategy enum, or the expected outcome. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, it could provide more context to fully inform the agent about what happens when invoked.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the overall purpose helps contextualize appIdentifier and strategy. No additional meaning is provided beyond what the schema already contains.

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 a specific action ('Redeploy an App') and its purpose ('get new containers without code changes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like modal_deploy (which involves code changes) and modal_app_rollback (which reverts to a previous version). The scope is 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 phrase 'without code changes' provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives, implying it is for operational refreshes rather than code deploys. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of full 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation is permanent and affects running containers, which is useful context. However, it does not mention reversibility, restart options, or potential side effects on app data, leaving some ambiguity about what 'permanently stop' entails beyond container termination.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that states the action and effect without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 stop operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the core purpose and consequence, and the schema covers parameter details. While it doesn't explain return values or error behaviors, these are not essential for such a straightforward action.

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

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

The schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: it doesn't clarify the 'env' parameter or the expected format of 'appIdentifier'. Since the schema already provides these details, the description does not need to repeat them, but it adds no additional insight.

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 action: 'Permanently stop an App' and its effect: 'terminate its running containers.' The verb 'stop' with the resource 'App' is specific, and the mention of 'permanently' and 'containers' distinguishes it from sibling tools like modal_container_stop, which targets individual containers.

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 when you want to stop an App and its containers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among the sibling tools, such as modal_container_stop for stopping a single container. The guidance 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?

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the container must be running, what happens on failure, if the command output is returned, or any side effects—critical gaps for a command execution tool.

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

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

The description is a single, direct sentence without unnecessary words. However, it is under-specified, omitting critical usage and behavioral information that could be included without harming conciseness.

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

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

Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description carries full responsibility for explaining the tool's behavior. It only covers the primary purpose and leaves out context about execution context, return values, or container requirements, making it insufficient for complete understanding.

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

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

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add further semantic detail, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without surpassing it.

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: executing a command in a container. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like modal_container_list, modal_container_logs, or modal_run, 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 offers only the basic function and no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as modal_run or modal_container_logs. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that only currently running containers are returned, but does not mention scope behavior (e.g., default environment), pagination, or whether stopped containers are excluded entirely. This is adequate for a low-risk read-only list but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It clearly states the action, object, and filter condition, making it highly scannable and appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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

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

For a simple list tool with two optional, schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It would benefit from clarifying the default scope when env is omitted, but overall it provides enough information for an agent to select the 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; 'all containers' could be interpreted as global, but the schema already clarifies appId filters to a specific App and env selects environment. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 explicit resource ('all containers that are currently running'), clearly distinguishing it from container exec/logs/stop siblings. The qualifier 'currently running' clarifies the selection criteria.

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 tool is for retrieving running containers, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like modal_container_logs or modal_container_stop. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving usage to inference.

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 only says 'Fetch logs,' implying a read operation, but does not disclose output format, default log limits, pagination, or error behavior when the container ID is invalid. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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 minimal description for a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It lacks essential context about return values, how tail/since/source interact, and the relationship to modal_app_logs. The agent would need to rely on the schema alone, which is insufficient for complex usage.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with descriptions for tail, since, source, and containerId. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not explain relationships between parameters or provide examples.

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 'Fetch logs for a specific container' clearly states the verb (fetch), resource (logs), and scope (specific container). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like modal_container_list (lists containers) and modal_container_exec (executes commands in a container), while the phrase 'specific container' implies the need for a container ID.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as modal_app_logs (which fetches app-level logs) or modal_container_list. The description only states what it does, not the context or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit decision support.

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 only states the action ('Terminate') without explaining side effects, irreversibility, or what happens to the container's data. The term 'terminate' implies stopping but leaves key behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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

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

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant details. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without wasting 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is functional but minimal. It lacks details about return values, failure modes, or asynchronous behavior. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully comprehensive given the absence of annotations.

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 fully documents the single required parameter with a clear description ('ID of the container to stop'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for 100% 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 'Terminate a running container' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like modal_app_stop which targets apps. It also specifies the 'running' state, adding context about when the action is valid.

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 modal_app_stop. It lacks any reference to prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a different tool would be more 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says that a deployment occurs, leaving out side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or impact on existing deployments, which is 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.

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is so sparse that it omits critical context, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 deployment tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain the deployment workflow, what happens to existing versions, how strategy or env affect the operation, or what the return value represents, leaving the agent without sufficient context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with every parameter documented, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema fully handles them, making a 3 appropriate.

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

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

The description uses the specific verb 'Deploy' with the resource 'Modal application', clearly stating the core operation. However, it lacks scope details and does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like modal_run, 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 provided about when to use this tool over alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The single sentence only states the action without any context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without any context. It fails to mention whether the operation requires special permissions, is reversible, what side effects it has, or what success/failure looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, 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 create tool, the description is minimal but does not explain what happens after creation (e.g., is it immediately available, does it overwrite existing environments, are there name constraints). With no output schema or annotations, the agent lacks the operational context to invoke it confidently.

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 already covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to either.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (create) and resource (environment) within the current workspace, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like modal_env_list, modal_env_delete, and modal_env_update. The verb+resource combination is specific and 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where manual_env_update or other create tools would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the word 'create'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether deletion is irreversible, requires permissions, or impacts associated resources like environment members. This leaves the agent without critical safety context 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 short sentence with no filler words, placing the action upfront. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 is minimal, covering the basic action and scope. However, it omits behavioral context such as return values, error handling, and side effects, which is notable since there is no output schema. For a simple one-parameter delete operation, it provides barely adequate completeness but not more.

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

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

The schema already documents the single 'name' parameter with a clear description, and the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies, as the description provides no extra value for 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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as 'environment' with the scope 'in the current workspace', making the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishing it from siblings like modal_env_create and modal_env_update.

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 specifying that this is for permanent removal or that deletion may have prerequisites. The usage is only implied by the name and action, not 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states a read-only list operation without mentioning the effect of the 'env' parameter, return format, pagination, or permissions. The phrase 'list all environments' conflicts with the existence of an optional 'env' parameter, leaving ambiguity.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and is immediately understandable.

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

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

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and one optional parameter, so the description needs to explain the parameter's purpose. It does not, leaving the agent unsure whether 'all environments' is unconditional or can be filtered by 'env'. Lacks minimal behavioral context for a tool with even a single parameter.

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% (the only parameter 'env' has a description), so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no meaning to this parameter, and its 'all environments' wording potentially contradicts a filtering behavior. The schema already documents the parameter, but the description does not clarify its role.

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 the specific verb 'List', names the resource 'environments', and scopes it to 'current workspace'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like modal_env_create, modal_env_delete, and modal_env_update.

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 a simple listing operation but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not explain when to use this over other environment tools, nor does it clarify the optional 'env' parameter's role in filtering or context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state there are no side effects, whether permissions are required, or what the response contains. It does not address pagination or output format.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter list operation, the description is adequately complete, but given there is no output schema or annotations, it could add context about what is returned (e.g., member identifiers, roles) and any access requirements. The phrase 'restricted Environment' is slightly ambiguous.

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

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

The schema covers the sole parameter 'environment' with description 'Environment name' (100% coverage). The description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('the members of a restricted Environment'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like modal_env_list (which lists environments) and modal_env_members_update/remove (which modify members).

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

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

The description implies use when you need to view environment members, but it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It only states the obvious action ('remove a member') and offers no insight into side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. The qualifier 'restricted' adds slight context but does not reveal any behavioral traits.

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

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

A single sentence that is direct and free of fluff. It fully captures the primary purpose of the tool without wasting 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 removal operation with fully described parameters, the description provides a minimal viable understanding. However, it lacks any elaboration on edge cases, return values, or prerequisites, which would be beneficial especially without annotations or an output 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (member, environment, serviceUser) already described. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('member from a restricted Environment'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like list and update. It is concise and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., members_update for changing roles, members_list for inspection). The description simply states the action without contextual cues or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Add or update', implying idempotency, but fails to specify permissions, side effects, whether existing roles are overwritten, or any response behavior. This is 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.

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy.

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

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should provide return-value details or prerequisites. It does mention 'restricted Environment' to give some context, but lacks information on what happens after the update or any required conditions. The tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap, so a 3 is fair.

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 provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (role, member, environment, serviceUser), so the description adds no additional semantic value. With 100% 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.

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

The description clearly identifies the action ('Add or update') and the resource ('member's role in a restricted Environment'), making it distinct from sibling tools like modal_env_members_list and modal_env_members_remove. It is specific and 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The description only states the function, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool name and sibling context. There is no discussion of exclusions or when to prefer this over modal_env_members_remove.

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 only says 'update' without indicating whether the operation is destructive, how existing settings are affected, or if it renames the environment. This is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could incorporate a bit more useful detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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

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

This is a mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description context. It omits what specific settings are updated, how the operation behaves, and what the return value or outcome is, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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 the three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema provides the necessary detail.

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 indicates an update operation on environment-level settings, distinguishing it from create/delete/list siblings. However, the term 'settings' is broad and the specific fields are only revealed in the schema, so it falls short of full specificity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the environment must exist), nor does it contrast with related update tools like modal_env_members_update.

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 disclosing behavior. It only states 'Run' without explaining side effects, whether it is a long-running operation, dependencies, or what happens to the executed function. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no safety hints.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified, providing only bare purpose without any structuring or additional context that would help an agent. It earns its place as a minimal statement but lacks depth.

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

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

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'run' entails, whether it returns a result, whether the app runs synchronously, or what the detach flag implies. The description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to correctly use the tool beyond the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters (env, appRef, detach) beyond what the schema already documents, which is acceptable given complete 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 'Run[s] a Modal function or local entrypoint,' identifying the specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like modal_deploy or modal_container_exec, which could both seem related to running or executing.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the fact of creation and gives no details about side effects, overwriting behavior (force parameter), error conditions, or required environment context. This is a significant gap for a tool that can overwrite secrets.

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 with no fluff, which is efficient. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise, but it does contain a clear verb and object, so it earns a slightly above-average score.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks context on how to use keyValues, what force does, environment handling, and expected outcomes. The tool needs more behavioral context to be safely invoked.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description does not explain how parameters interact or provide examples, but the schema is sufficient.

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

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

The description 'Create a new secret.' simply restates the tool name (modal_secret_create) without adding any distinguishing scope or details. It does indicate the action and resource, but it is essentially a tautology, providing no value beyond the name itself.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the verb 'create' implies usage, there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools such as modal_secret_list or modal_secret_delete.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete', not whether the deletion is permanent, irreversible, or has dependencies on environments. This is insufficient 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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could have incorporated more behavioral detail without losing conciseness.

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

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

For a delete operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should mention consequences (e.g., permanence, failure conditions) and maybe environment implications. It does none of this, making it minimally complete.

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 both parameters (env and name) are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 'Delete a named Secret.' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (Secret), with a specific verb that distinguishes it from list/create operations. However, it lacks nuance about scope or effects, so it's not quite 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states the action without context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses only the basic action. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, whether there is pagination, or how the 'env' parameter affects the results. The description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure and fails to provide meaningful context beyond the headline.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and very concise, earning its place with minimal overhead.

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 list operation with one optional parameter, but the description does not mention how the 'env' parameter affects the listing or describe the return format. Since there is no output schema, the description could be more complete by clarifying these aspects, but for a basic list tool, it is minimally 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?

The schema fully describes the sole parameter 'env' with the description 'Environment to interact with', so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the structured schema already handles parameter explanation.

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 'List your published secrets' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('secrets'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like modal_secret_create and modal_secret_delete. The phrase 'published secrets' adds a specific scope, 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 implies usage: when you want to see the secrets you have published. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or any context about environment filtering, which is present in the schema but not explained in the 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the volume is persistent, but does not mention idempotency, behavior on duplicate names, environment requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a create 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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the core function, earning a high score for concision and structure.

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

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

For a simple create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but missing critical context such as what happens if a volume already exists, whether the env parameter is required, or how 'persistent' affects subsequent usage. This leaves gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 already documents both parameters ('Environment to interact with' and 'Name of the volume') with 100% coverage. The description adds the word 'named' but no additional semantic detail about formats, constraints, or the optional env parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a named, persistent modal.Volume'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list/delete. The verb and resource are specific enough to understand the primary function.

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 modal_volume_delete or modal_volume_rename. It does not mention any context or exclusions, so an agent gets no decision support.

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 burden of disclosing behavior. It does warn that all data is deleted, which is critical context for a destructive operation, but it stops short of stating irreversibility, permission requirements, or consequences for dependent resources.

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, direct sentence with no filler, exactly conveying the action and its scope. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 low complexity, complete schema coverage, and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the essential destructive behavior. However, it could be more complete by explicitly noting that the deletion is permanent, which would fully prepare an agent.

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

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

The input schema fully describes both parameters (env and name) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description's phrase 'named Volume' aligns with the 'name' parameter but does not enhance it.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the target resource ('a named Volume'), and the full scope ('all of its data'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like modal_volume_rm that operate on files within a volume.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., volume must exist), and no exclusions or related tool recommendations. The intended use is only implied by the name and 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without explaining potential side effects like writing to the local filesystem, behavior when localDest is '-', or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs local writes.

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 wasted words. It immediately states the verb and object, making it highly concise and easy to scan.

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

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

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more behavioral context. It is minimally viable but does not explain return values or local write behavior, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Download files') and the resource ('modal.Volume object'), making it specific and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like modal_volume_put (upload) and modal_volume_ls (list).

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and siblings.

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 present, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'List the details' without specifying what details are returned, output format, or that it is a read-only operation. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

Single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. The description is appropriately sized for its simple purpose.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter listing tool, the description is adequate but lacks definition of 'details' and expected output. Without an output schema, the description could be more explicit about what the agent will receive.

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 only parameter 'env' is fully described in the schema as 'Environment to interact with', and the description reiterates the environment context without adding new semantic information. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional value.

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

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

Description clearly states the specific action (List) and resource (all modal.Volume volumes) within an Environment, distinguishing it from sibling volume operations like modal_volume_ls which likely lists volume contents.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as modal_volume_ls or other list tools. It lacks any context on prerequisites, filtering, or use cases, leaving the agent to guess when this is the right choice.

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?

There are no annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic listing operation. It does not mention whether the listing includes hidden files, whether recursion is supported, error behavior, or permission requirements.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. There is no redundant or irrelevant 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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, whether the path parameter defaults to the root, or any edge cases. For a simple listing tool, some additional context would be expected.

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 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but also adds no value.

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 explicitly states the action ('List') and the resource ('files and directories in a modal.Volume volume'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like modal_volume_list, which likely lists volumes rather than their contents.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of appropriate scenarios, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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 implies a write operation ('Upload') but does not mention permissions, reversibility, overwrite behavior, or any side effects. Unlike a tool with annotations, this lacks crucial safety and mutation context.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and object type without redundancy.

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It doesn't explain default remotePath behavior, the effect of the 'force' parameter, or how directories are handled. The minimal description leaves gaps for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema already provides meaning for localPath, remotePath, volumeName, force, and env. The description does not add any parameter-level insight beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Upload') and resource ('a modal.Volume'), and specifies the object as a file or directory. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like modal_volume_get (download) and modal_volume_ls (list).

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the action without any 'use this when' or 'instead of' information.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or error conditions. For a mutation operation, this is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states 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.

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

The tool is a simple rename operation, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, the description lacks information about return values, prerequisites (e.g., volume must exist), and side effects. This makes it minimally adequate but with gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with all three parameters (env, oldName, newName) having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description 'Rename a modal.Volume' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling operations like volume_create, volume_delete, and volume_ls. It is unambiguous about the action being performed.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be invoked.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions only the deletion action and does not note that deletion is permanent, that recursive deletion is required for directories, or any potential side effects. The schema's 'recursive' parameter hints at one behavior, but the description itself lacks 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 concise sentence that front-loads the tool's core purpose. Every word is relevant, and there is 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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the schema covers parameters, but without annotations the description lacks critical context about destructiveness and usage conditions. It provides enough to understand the basic operation but not enough to fully guide safe and correct 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 already documents all four parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as 'a file or directory from a modal.Volume,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like modal_volume_delete (which deletes the volume itself) and modal_volume_ls (list). This is a precise and unambiguous purpose statement.

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

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

The description provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states the action without contextual guidance that would help an agent decide between this and similar volume-related tools.

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