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 clearly indicates a mutation action ('Add to the blacklist') and its effect ('cannot be executed until unblocked'), which covers basic behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, or system-wide impacts, leaving gaps in transparency 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 the core action in the first sentence and adds crucial context in the second. Both sentences earn their place by defining the tool's purpose and effect without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity as a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and the outcome, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools like 'list_blocked_commands'. This leaves room for improvement in fully guiding 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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the 'command' parameter is what gets added to the blacklist, clarifying its role beyond the schema's type definition. However, it does not detail the format or constraints of the command string, such as examples or allowed syntax, which limits full compensation.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Add a command to the blacklist') and the resource ('command'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'unblock_command' and 'list_blocked_commands'. It explicitly explains the effect ('Once blocked, the command cannot be executed until unblocked'), 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 context by stating the tool blocks commands from execution, which suggests it should be used for security or control purposes. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like 'edit_block' or 'unblock_command', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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. It discloses some behavioral traits: it can create nested directories and is restricted to allowed directories. However, it lacks critical details such as permissions required, whether it overwrites existing directories, error handling, or response format, leaving significant 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 the core purpose and efficiently adds key constraints in two sentences. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action and capability, the second sets a critical limitation. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more 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 complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses details on permissions, error cases, return values, and how it interacts with siblings like 'write_file', making it inadequate for safe and effective use by 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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'path', and the description adds no explicit parameter information. However, it implies the 'path' parameter is used to specify the directory location, including nested structures. This provides minimal semantic value beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline for low coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('create' and 'ensure') and resource ('directory'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_directory' or 'move_file'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'write_file' which might handle file creation, leaving slight ambiguity.

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

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

The description implies usage for creating or ensuring directories, including nested ones, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'write_file' for files or 'list_allowed_directories' for checking permissions. The constraint 'only works within allowed directories' hints at prerequisites but lacks detail on alternatives 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'replacements'), includes a size constraint (<20% of file size), supports multiple changes, and will 'verify changes after application.' However, it lacks details on error handling or permissions.

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 sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by usage tips, and ending with the parameter format. Every sentence adds value 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 complexity (mutation with verification) and no annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete, covering purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters. It could improve by mentioning error cases or output format, but it's sufficient for an agent to use 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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It explains the single parameter 'blockContent' by detailing its format: 'filepath, then <<<<<<< SEARCH, content to find, =======, new content, >>>>>>> REPLACE,' adding essential meaning beyond the schema's minimal type information.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('apply surgical text replacements') and resource ('files'), distinguishing it from siblings like write_file or search_files by focusing on targeted modifications rather than full writes or searches.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool ('best for small changes (<20% of file size)') and mentions 'multiple blocks can be used for separate changes,' but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings like write_file for larger changes.

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 that commands run in the background if they exceed the timeout, which adds some context. However, it fails to address critical aspects like permission requirements, side effects (e.g., file modifications), error handling, or output format, leaving significant gaps for a tool that executes terminal commands.

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, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds important behavioral context without unnecessary elaboration. While efficient, it could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details, but it avoids redundancy and waste.

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 executing terminal commands, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on security implications, execution environment, return values, or error cases. For a potentially dangerous tool with 2 parameters, this minimal description leaves too many unknowns for safe and effective use.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'timeout' generically without explaining the 'timeout_ms' parameter's unit (milliseconds) or the 'command' parameter's format (e.g., shell syntax). This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to adequately clarify parameter meanings and usage.

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 a terminal command with timeout.' It specifies the verb ('execute') and resource ('terminal command'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'block_command' or 'force_terminate', 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, appropriate contexts, or when to choose other tools like 'force_terminate' for stopping commands or 'read_output' for checking results. This lack of comparative guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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 but offers minimal behavioral context. It implies a destructive action ('force terminate') but doesn't clarify permissions needed, side effects, error conditions, or what constitutes a 'terminal session'. More transparency about the operation's impact would be helpful.

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 one sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.

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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should explain more about the operation's consequences, parameter meaning, and expected outcomes given the tool's complexity and potential impact.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single parameter 'pid'. It doesn't explain what 'pid' represents, valid ranges, or format expectations, leaving the parameter completely undocumented beyond the schema's type declaration.

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 ('force terminate') and target resource ('a running terminal session'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'kill_process' which might serve similar functions, preventing 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kill_process' or 'list_sessions'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, offering only basic functional 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the constraint about allowed directories, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the path is invalid, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency for a read 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a critical constraint in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it 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 low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a key constraint but lacks details on return values, error cases, or full parameter semantics. For a tool with one parameter and no structured support, it should do more to be fully 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'path' parameter is used to specify the file or directory for metadata retrieval, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not detail path format or examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieve detailed metadata') and resource ('about a file or directory'), listing concrete attributes like size, creation time, and type. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_directory' (which lists contents) and 'read_file' (which reads file content) by focusing on metadata retrieval.

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

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

The description provides clear context with the constraint 'Only works within allowed directories', which implicitly guides usage by indicating where it can be applied. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'list_directory' for listing contents or 'read_file' for reading content, nor does it mention 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is 'forcefully terminate,' indicating destructive behavior, and warns of caution, which covers safety aspects. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., data loss), or error handling, 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides crucial behavioral guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for a single-parameter 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the destructive nature and caution needed but misses details like return values, error cases, or prerequisites. For a mutation tool with 1 parameter, it provides a baseline but lacks depth.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'pid' is used to 'terminate a running process by PID,' adding meaning beyond the schema's type definition. However, it does not specify PID format (e.g., integer), valid ranges, or how to obtain it, leaving some semantic gaps.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('terminate') and target resource ('running process by PID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'force_terminate' (which might be similar but has a different name) and 'list_processes' (which only reads). It provides a complete verb+resource+identifier combination.

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 includes explicit cautionary guidance ('Use with caution') and implies this is for forceful termination, but does not specify when to use alternatives like 'force_terminate' (a sibling tool) or other process management methods. It provides clear context about risk but lacks explicit 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list but doesn't specify format, pagination, permissions required, rate limits, or what 'allowed to access' means operationally. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool (0 params), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'allowed to access' entails, the return format, or how this differs from similar listing tools. For a tool that might involve permissions or server configuration, more context 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's fine here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 ('list of directories'), specifying what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'list_blocked_commands', which also list things. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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_directory' or 'search_files'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without usage 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 states the action ('List') but doesn't describe what 'blocked commands' entails (e.g., system-level vs. user-level), how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves security or system state.

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 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 listing system commands (likely involving security or permissions) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'blocked commands' means, how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned implicit constraints (e.g., no filtering options). Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 ('List') and resource ('blocked commands') with the scope 'all currently', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_allowed_directories' or 'list_processes' beyond the resource name, 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, such as 'unblock_command' for managing blocked commands or other list tools for different resources. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, offering only a basic functional statement.

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 reveals important behavioral traits: the output format includes [FILE] and [DIR] prefixes for distinction, and there's a constraint about allowed directories. However, it doesn't disclose other potential behaviors like error conditions, permission requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get').

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core purpose, second explains output formatting, third adds critical constraint. It's front-loaded with the main functionality and wastes no 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, output format, and operational constraints. The main gap is lack of explicit mention about whether this is a read-only operation, though that's somewhat implied. For a listing tool, this provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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

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

The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'path', but the description compensates by explaining what the parameter represents ('a specified path') and adding crucial context about its constraints ('Only works within allowed directories'). This provides meaningful semantic information beyond the bare schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get a detailed listing') and resource ('files and directories in a specified path'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_files' by focusing on comprehensive listing rather than searching, and from 'list_allowed_directories' by operating within directories rather than listing allowed ones.

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

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

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('in a specified path') and includes an important constraint ('Only works within allowed directories'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools available.

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 mentions the return data (PID, command name, CPU usage, memory usage) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, real-time vs. cached data, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with system processes.

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 that are front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second adds valuable output details, with every word earning 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?

Given the tool's complexity (system process listing) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and output format but misses behavioral context like safety, permissions, or limitations, which are crucial for such an operation.

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

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, making it efficient and focused on the tool's purpose and output.

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 ('List') and resource ('all running processes'), specifying exactly what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'kill_process' or 'force_terminate' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification or termination.

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 for monitoring or inspecting system processes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_sessions' or 'list_directory'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List all active terminal sessions' but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is read-only (implied by 'list'), what 'active' means, how sessions are identified, or if there are rate limits or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence ('List all active terminal sessions.') that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no wasted text, and it directly communicates 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, output format, or usage guidelines. For a list operation, more details on what 'active' entails or the structure of returned data would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate for a basic 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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to compensate for any gaps, and it appropriately avoids discussing parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameter information is required or 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 'List all active terminal sessions' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('active terminal sessions'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like list_directory or list_processes by focusing on terminal sessions rather than files or processes.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools (e.g., list_processes might overlap with terminal sessions). Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool 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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the constraint about allowed directories, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, whether the operation is atomic or reversible, or what happens if the destination exists. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 sized with three concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second clarifies the dual functionality, and the third adds a critical constraint, with no wasted words.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and a key constraint but misses behavioral details like permissions, error cases, and return values. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with 2 parameters and no structured support.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds some meaning by explaining that source and destination are used for moving/renaming within allowed directories, but it does not specify format requirements (e.g., path syntax) or examples. This partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('move or rename') and resources ('files and directories'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_directory, read_file, and write_file. It explicitly mentions the dual functionality of moving between directories and renaming in one operation.

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

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

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('move or rename files and directories') and includes a constraint ('Both source and destination must be within allowed directories'), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like create_directory or write_file.

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 and adds valuable behavioral context: it handles various text encodings, provides detailed error messages, and restricts to allowed directories. This covers key operational traits like input handling, error behavior, and security constraints, though it omits details like performance limits 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in two concise sentences. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second covers encoding and errors, and the third specifies directory restrictions, with no wasted words.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does, behavioral traits, and usage constraints. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., content format, encoding specifics) and does not fully address parameter semantics, leaving minor gaps.

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

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

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'path' parameter by mentioning 'file from the file system' and 'allowed directories,' but does not explicitly define 'path' or its format (e.g., absolute/relative paths, file extensions). This adds some meaning but falls short of fully documenting the parameter.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Read the complete contents') and resource ('a file from the file system'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'read_multiple_files' (plural vs. single) and 'get_file_info' (metadata vs. contents). The verb 'Read' is precise 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 clear context for usage with 'Only works within allowed directories,' which implicitly suggests using 'list_allowed_directories' to check permissions. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., when to use 'read_multiple_files' for bulk operations) and does not state when not to use it, such as for binary files or large files that might be inefficient.

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 behavioral traits: partial failure tolerance ('Failed reads for individual files won't stop the entire operation'), access restrictions ('Only works within allowed directories'), and the batch nature of the operation. It doesn't mention error handling details or performance characteristics, but covers the essential safety and reliability aspects.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each add distinct value: the core functionality, output format, and operational constraints. There's no wasted language, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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

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

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema documentation, the description provides good coverage of the essential context: purpose, behavior, constraints, and parameter meaning. It doesn't describe the exact return format structure or error responses, but given the tool's relative simplicity, it's reasonably 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single 'paths' parameter, the description compensates well by explaining what the parameter represents ('multiple files') and the operational context ('within allowed directories'). While it doesn't specify path format requirements or array size limits, it provides sufficient semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Read the contents of multiple files simultaneously') and distinguishes it from the sibling 'read_file' tool by emphasizing batch processing. It also specifies the resource ('files') and the output format ('Each file's content is returned with its path as a reference').

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

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

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Only works within allowed directories') and implies an alternative by distinguishing it from 'read_file' for single-file operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives beyond the obvious sibling.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads output but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what happens if the PID is invalid or the session has ended, whether it returns partial or complete output, or if there are rate limits. For a tool interacting with running processes, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly while still providing essential 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 complexity of interacting with running terminal sessions, no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address error conditions, output format, or how to handle multiple sessions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior in a potentially error-prone context.

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

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

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain what 'pid' represents (e.g., process ID of a terminal session), its format, or how to obtain valid values. This gap makes it harder for an AI agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('new output from a running terminal session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_file' or 'read_multiple_files' which also involve reading operations, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool is appropriate versus those 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?

The description provides minimal guidance, implying usage when there's a running terminal session with new output to read. It doesn't specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'read_file' or 'list_processes', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an active session or how to identify valid PIDs. This lack of explicit context reduces its utility for an AI agent.

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 behavioral traits like recursion and directory restrictions, but fails to mention critical aspects such as performance implications (e.g., time-consuming for large directories), error handling, or output format (e.g., list of paths). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three concise sentences that each add value: the first defines the core action, the second specifies recursion, and the third adds a constraint. There is no wasted text, making it efficient for an agent 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 complexity (recursive search with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses key contextual details like what the output contains (e.g., file paths, metadata), how errors are handled, or performance considerations, which are essential for proper tool 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by implying 'path' is the starting point and 'pattern' is the search criteria, but does not explain parameter details like format (e.g., glob vs. regex for pattern) or constraints (e.g., path must exist). This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search for files and directories') and resources ('matching a pattern'), and distinguishes its scope ('recursively', 'through all subdirectories from the starting path'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'get_file_info', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 context by specifying 'recursively' and 'only searches within allowed directories', which suggests when to use this tool for deep searches. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'list_directory' (for non-recursive listing) or 'get_file_info' (for single file details), leaving some ambiguity.

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 states the tool removes a command from the blacklist and allows execution, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the change is permanent or reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. This is a significant gap 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place by explaining the purpose and outcome without waste. It is 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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, error handling, and output expectations, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI 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 schema description coverage is 0%, with one undocumented parameter ('command'). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it mentions 'command' but does not explain what constitutes a valid command, format requirements, or examples. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Remove a command from the blacklist') and the resource affected ('command'), with the outcome ('Once unblocked, the command can be executed normally'). It distinguishes from its sibling 'block_command' by being the inverse operation.

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 a command needs to be removed from the blacklist to allow execution, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_block' or 'list_blocked_commands'. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's destructive ('will overwrite existing files'), has constraints ('Only works within allowed directories'), and provides context on failure cases ('when edit_block fails'). However, it doesn't mention error handling, permissions, or rate limits, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, cautions, and constraints, all in a concise three-sentence structure with no wasted words.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (destructive file operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects like purpose, usage, and constraints. However, it doesn't explain return values or error conditions, which would be helpful for a tool with no 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameters (path and content) but doesn't explicitly explain their semantics beyond context. For example, it mentions 'allowed directories' which relates to path constraints, but doesn't detail format or validation. This adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Completely replace file contents') and resource ('file'), distinguishing it from siblings like edit_block (for partial edits) and read_file (for reading). It explicitly mentions overwriting existing files, which clarifies its destructive nature.

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 ('Best for large changes (>20% of file) or when edit_block fails') and when not to use it (implied for small changes where edit_block is preferred). It also names an alternative (edit_block) and includes a cautionary note about overwriting files.

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