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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'bulk insert or update' and 'upsert operations,' which implies mutation capabilities, but doesn't address critical behaviors like authentication requirements (though the schema hints at apiKey), error handling, performance characteristics, rate limits, or what happens on conflicts. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and key feature. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary details or 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 the complexity of a bulk mutation tool with 4 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, return values, performance implications, and usage context. For a tool that modifies data, this is inadequate.

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 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds some context by mentioning 'CSV or JSON file' and 'unique key,' which loosely relates to 'filePath' and 'upsertKey' parameters, but doesn't provide detailed semantics like file format specifics, key constraints, or how upsert works. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Bulk insert or update data from CSV or JSON file. Supports upsert operations with a unique key.' It specifies the verb (bulk insert/update), resource (data), and format (CSV/JSON), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'run-raw-sql' or 'get-table-schema' which serve different purposes.

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 mentions upsert operations but doesn't specify scenarios where bulk-upsert is preferred over individual operations or other data import methods. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with 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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens if a bucket with the same name exists. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it efficient though potentially 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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 33% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects. The description should provide more context given the complexity and lack of structured documentation.

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 only 33% (only 'apiKey' has a description), leaving 'bucketName' and 'isPublic' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. It doesn't explain what 'bucketName' should contain or what 'isPublic' controls.

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 new storage bucket' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('storage bucket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-buckets' or 'delete-bucket' beyond the obvious action difference, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 like 'list-buckets' or 'delete-bucket', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Deno runtime and a file prerequisite, but fails to disclose critical behavioral aspects: whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, whether the function is immediately deployable, what happens on failure, or what the tool returns. The description is insufficient for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds an important prerequisite. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading the prerequisite more explicitly.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, authentication requirements, and detailed parameter semantics. The prerequisite about file writing is helpful but insufficient for the tool's complexity and lack of structured documentation.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage (only 'codeFile' has a description), the description must compensate but adds minimal parameter context. It mentions 'code must be written to a file' which relates to 'codeFile', but provides no semantic context for 'name', 'slug', 'description', or 'status' parameters. The description doesn't explain what these parameters mean or how they affect the created function.

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 a new edge function') and specifies the runtime environment ('runs in Deno runtime'), which distinguishes it from generic creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-function' or 'delete-function' beyond the basic verb.

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 like 'update-function' or 'get-function'. It mentions a prerequisite ('code must be written to a file first') but doesn't explain when this creation method is preferred over other approaches or what scenarios warrant its use.

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. While 'Deletes' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, if it requires special permissions, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the core action ('Deletes'), making it immediately scannable and clear.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like irreversible consequences, error conditions, or what the agent should expect after invocation. Given the complexity and risk of bucket deletion, more behavioral guidance is needed.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no context about bucket naming conventions or authentication precedence). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and resource ('a storage bucket'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-bucket' or 'list-buckets' beyond the verb itself, which prevents a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., bucket must be empty), warn about irreversible deletion, or suggest using 'list-buckets' first to verify bucket names. This lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'permanently', which hints at irreversibility, but fails to address critical aspects like required permissions, error handling (e.g., what happens if the slug doesn't exist), or confirmation prompts. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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

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

The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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?

Given this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, error responses, or what happens post-deletion. For a tool that permanently deletes resources, more context is needed to ensure safe 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'slug' parameter adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or context about where to find the slug. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an edge function'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-bucket' or 'update-function' beyond the resource name, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-function' or what prerequisites might be needed (e.g., checking if the function exists first). It only states what the tool does, not when or why to invoke it.

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 discloses that the tool downloads to a temporary directory and requires a follow-up copy command, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens if the template already exists, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with critical information ('CRITICAL: MANDATORY FIRST STEP') and uses two concise sentences that earn their place by stating the action, context, and required follow-up. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient and well-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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral steps, but as a mutation tool (download implies write operation), it could benefit from more details on side effects or error scenarios. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the clear post-action instructions.

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 both parameters. The description does not add specific parameter details beyond the schema, but it implicitly reinforces the importance of 'frame' by mentioning 'pre-configured starter template' and 'InsForge projects,' aligning with the schema's framework focus. Baseline is 3, but the contextual reinforcement slightly enhances 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Download pre-configured starter template to a temporary directory.' It specifies the action (download), resource (starter template), and context (InsForge projects). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create-bucket' or 'run-raw-sql' by focusing on project initialization.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'CRITICAL: MANDATORY FIRST STEP for all new InsForge projects' indicates when to use it, and 'After download, you MUST copy files to current directory using the provided command' specifies post-action requirements. It implies alternatives are not applicable for this initial step, offering clear 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions fetching documentation but lacks details on how the tool behaves: e.g., whether it returns raw text, formatted content, links, or errors; if there are rate limits; authentication requirements; or any side effects. The description is minimal beyond the basic action, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is highly concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that states the purpose and usage guidelines efficiently. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted information, making it easy for an agent to parse and apply.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks details on return values (no output schema provided) and behavioral aspects like error handling or format. For a fetch tool with no annotations, more context on what 'fetch' entails would improve completeness.

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 the docType parameter fully documented in the schema, including enum values and descriptions. The description adds some semantic context by emphasizing 'instructions' as mandatory first and grouping SDK types, but this mostly reiterates schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fetch Insforge documentation.' It specifies the resource (Insforge documentation) and the action (fetch), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings beyond the documentation-fetching context. The mention of specific SDK categories adds specificity but doesn't fully differentiate from potential documentation-related siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use "instructions" for essential backend setup (MANDATORY FIRST), or select specific SDK docs for database, auth, storage, functions, or AI integration.' It clearly indicates the priority of 'instructions' and lists alternative documentation types for different needs, offering strong contextual direction.

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 effectively describes key traits: the token 'never expires' (a critical behavioral detail), it's for 'public access' (implying low security risk), and it 'Requires admin API key' (specifying authentication needs). However, it doesn't mention rate limits or potential side effects, leaving some gaps.

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

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

The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and key behavior, the second provides usage context and prerequisites. It's front-loaded with essential information and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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, no output schema, and a simple single-parameter tool, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral traits. However, it doesn't describe the output format (e.g., token structure), which could be helpful since there's no output schema, leaving a minor gap.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single optional parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or usage context for the apiKey. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Generate'), the resource ('anonymous JWT token'), and key characteristics ('never expires'). It distinguishes this from other authentication mechanisms by specifying it's for 'client-side applications that need public access,' making it specific and differentiated from sibling tools.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('for client-side applications that need public access') and provides a prerequisite ('Requires admin API key'). It also implies when not to use it (for non-public or server-side scenarios), offering clear guidance without naming specific 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Index all backend metadata' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication (though the schema hints at an optional API key), rate limits, or what 'index' entails (e.g., returns a list, summary, or detailed data). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, 'Index all backend metadata', which is front-loaded and efficient. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. Every word earns its place, though it's borderline minimal.

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, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool's complexity (indexing metadata) isn't adequately explained. The description lacks details on what 'backend metadata' includes, the format of the output, or any constraints, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the simple parameter 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, documenting an optional API key for authentication. The description doesn't add any parameter details, which is acceptable since the schema fully covers it. With 0 parameters requiring extra semantics, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is needed.

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 'Index all backend metadata' states a verb ('Index') and resource ('backend metadata'), giving a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'index' means (e.g., retrieve, list, or catalog) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'list-buckets' or 'get-table-schema', which might overlap in metadata retrieval. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list-buckets' and 'get-table-schema' that might handle specific metadata types, the description doesn't indicate if this tool is comprehensive or for general use, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is for debugging, implying read-only behavior, but fails to specify critical details like authentication requirements (though hinted in schema), rate limits, or what 'latest' means (e.g., time-based or count-based). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's operational traits.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, error handling, or return format, which are important for a debugging tool. The schema compensates somewhat, but more context would improve completeness.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear details for all parameters (apiKey, source, limit). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying the tool's purpose without elaborating on parameter meanings or interactions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get latest logs') and resource ('from a specific container/service'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on log retrieval rather than operations like create, delete, or update. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential log-related siblings that might not exist in the current 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 implied usage context ('to help debug problems with your app'), suggesting when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the sibling tools, such as whether other tools might provide similar functionality 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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get details' including code, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' beyond code are included. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that retrieves potentially sensitive function code.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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?

Given the complexity of retrieving function details (including code) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' encompass beyond code, potential security implications, or response format, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper 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 the single parameter 'slug' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific edge function including its code', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-buckets' or 'create-function' by focusing on retrieval of a single function's details, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'get-table-schema'.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a function slug), when not to use it (e.g., for listing functions), or direct alternatives among siblings like 'get-backend-metadata' or 'get-container-logs'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns detailed schema including RLS, indexes, and constraints, which adds some context beyond a basic 'get schema' statement. However, it lacks information on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or response format, which are critical 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Returns the detailed schema') and includes key details (RLS, indexes, constraints) without waste. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving schema details), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It specifies what schema details are included, which helps, but lacks information on authentication, error cases, or return structure. This leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (apiKey and tableName) fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining tableName format or apiKey usage scenarios. Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('detailed schema of a specific table'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on table schema retrieval rather than operations like bulk-upsert or run-raw-sql. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get-backend-metadata or get-function, which might also return metadata, making it a 4 rather than 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer get-table-schema over get-backend-metadata for schema details or when to use it in conjunction with other tools like run-raw-sql. There's no explicit context or exclusions provided, leaving usage unclear.

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 burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Lists all storage buckets' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes metadata, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could affect agent decision-making.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, return format, or error handling. For a basic list operation, it provides the core purpose but leaves contextual gaps that could be important for 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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Since there are no parameters to explain, this meets expectations without unnecessary 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 states the action ('Lists') and resource ('storage buckets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-bucket' or 'delete-bucket', but the verb 'Lists' inherently distinguishes it as a read operation rather than a mutation. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does without being tautological.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get-backend-metadata' or 'fetch-docs' that might provide related information. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description without explicit direction.

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 effectively adds context beyond what the input schema provides: it specifies 'Admin access required' (auth needs) and 'Use with caution as it can modify data directly' (destructive potential and risk warning). This covers key behavioral traits like permissions and safety, though it lacks details on rate limits or response 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 highly concise and front-loaded: three short sentences that each add value—stating the purpose, access requirements, and caution. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates essential information 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 the tool's complexity (raw SQL execution with potential data modification), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, auth, and risks, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or specific usage examples. This is adequate for a basic understanding but has clear gaps for safe and effective use.

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

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

Schema description coverage is low (33%), with only 'apiKey' having a description in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter semantics: it mentions 'optional parameters' but doesn't explain what 'query' or 'params' entail beyond their names. It partially compensates by hinting at usage context, but doesn't fully address the coverage gap, resulting in a baseline score.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute raw SQL query with optional parameters.' It specifies the verb ('Execute') and resource ('raw SQL query'), distinguishing it from siblings like get-table-schema or create-function. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., bulk-upsert might also involve SQL-like operations), keeping it from a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides some usage context: 'Admin access required. Use with caution as it can modify data directly.' This implies when to use (for raw SQL execution with admin privileges) and cautions about risks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., use get-table-schema for read-only schema info) or when not to use this tool, leaving guidance incomplete.

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 full burden but only states it updates code or metadata. It doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. 'Update' implies mutation but lacks behavioral details.

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 sentence, front-loaded with core purpose, zero wasted words. Efficiently communicates the essential action 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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 40% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or provide enough context for safe and effective use.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 40% (only 'slug' and 'codeFile' have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'code' and 'metadata' updates, which partially maps to parameters but doesn't explain 'name', 'description', or 'status' 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 clearly states the action ('update') and target ('existing edge function'), specifying both code and metadata. It distinguishes from 'create-function' by focusing on existing functions, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get-function' or other siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-function' or 'get-function'. The description implies it's for existing functions but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or contextual recommendations.

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