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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing whether the feedback is stored, if it modifies the template, or if special permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately tells the reader what the tool does.

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?

Although the tool has a complete schema and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what happens when feedback is submitted, any side effects, or when to use the tool. Given the lack of annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete for a mutating 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 schema provides full coverage of all parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Optional rating (1-5)', 'Specific suggestions for improvements'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('provide feedback') and resource ('action template'), and the intent ('to improve it'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which focus on feedback.

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 at a high level (when you want to give feedback) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any prerequisite conditions. There are no direct sibling alternatives for feedback, but the guidance is still only implied.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only check, what specific permissions are tested, or what the response looks like such as a boolean or detailed report. The minimal wording leaves significant ambiguity for a tool that could affect agent decisions.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter health check tool, though it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage context, such as when to call get_connection_status or how to interpret 'database access permissions,' leaving some gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke this 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't add parameter details, but none are 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 clearly states the tool checks Neo4j connection status and database access permissions, using a specific verb ('check') and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like run_custom_query or write_neo4j_cypher, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not under what circumstances an agent should invoke it (e.g., before running queries) or when other tools are more appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the tool adds a snippet, but not behavioral details such as uniqueness constraints, required fields, failure modes, or idempotency. This is a significant gap for a create operation.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. While it is under-specified, the conciseness itself is appropriate; the issue is lack of content, not verbosity.

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

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

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide context on parameter meanings or edge cases. With 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the tool is not adequately contextualized for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no paramater semantics. Fields like 'since', 'tags', and 'example' have no explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('a new Cypher snippet'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_cypher_snippet and delete_cypher_snippet. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or why one would choose create over update.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether deletion is permanent, if it can be undone, or if there are any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 but is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It essentially restates the tool name and provides no extra information to justify 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 operation, the description lacks essential context such as irreversibility, error handling, or required permissions. Even with an output schema present, the description is inadequate for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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

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

The schema has a single parameter 'id' with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not elaborate on its meaning or required format. The agent must infer that 'id' refers to a snippet identifier without any confirmation.

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 (Cypher snippet), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, update, and list. It is specific and unambiguous.

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

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

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or consequences, so the agent cannot determine the appropriate context for invoking this tool versus others.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieve detailed steps,' which is a read operation, but it does not mention side effects, error behavior, version fallback semantics, or any permissions/rate limits. The description adds little beyond the tool's name and schema.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise 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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the lack of annotations and absence of guidance about when to use this over related tools (e.g., list_action_templates) leaves gaps. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 both 'keyword' and 'version' already described in the schema. The description's mention of 'by keyword' aligns with the schema but adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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

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

The description clearly states the action: 'Retrieve detailed steps for a specific action template by keyword.' It identifies the verb (retrieve), the resource (detailed steps for a specific action template), and the method (by keyword). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_action_templates.

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

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

The description implies usage when you have a specific keyword and need detailed steps, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The phrase 'by keyword' gives a prerequisite but no comparison to siblings like list_action_templates.

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, yet it only states a basic retrieval action. It does not mention side effects, permissions, return format, or any other behavioral traits, leaving the agent without enough information.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with clear structure.

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

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

Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description lacks essential usage context. It fails to mention the optional category parameter, when to use this tool versus similar siblings, or what the best practices guide specifically contains, making selection ambiguous.

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

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

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'category' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, but the schema already provides sufficient 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 tool retrieves a best practices guide for coding workflows, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar siblings like get_guidance_hub, 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. It is a single purpose statement without contextual instructions for the 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 must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only says it gets status, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects), authorization requirements, or what exactly 'cleanup and resource status' covers. This is a significant gap for a monitoring tool.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words. Though very brief, it effectively communicates the core purpose without waste, earning a high score for conciseness.

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

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

Given the tool has no parameters and a simple purpose, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with no output details, it leaves ambiguity about what 'cleanup and resource status' actually includes and how the result is structured. The context is not fully complete, but the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema partially compensate.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no parameter details, but none are 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get current cleanup and resource status for monitoring.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cleanup and resource status'), making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_project or get_current_incarnation because it uniquely targets cleanup and resource status.

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

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

The phrase 'for monitoring' implies the tool is used to observe cleanup and resource state, providing a clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it. There is no guidance on how this tool relates to other get_* tools, so usage guidance is only partially provided.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation but provides no details about side effects, error conditions, or what happens if no incarnation is active. The simplicity of a getter is clear, but the description is minimal.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words or irrelevant details.

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 (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It doesn't explain the concept of 'incarnation,' but that is likely domain knowledge. The description adequately covers the tool's function.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, which earns a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed since there are no inputs to clarify.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('currently active incarnation type'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_incarnations and switch_incarnation. It communicates exactly what is returned without 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_incarnations. The context signals show related siblings, but the description does not mention them or any 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, the description carries the burden. 'Get' signals a read operation, but it does not disclose behavior for missing IDs, permissions, or side effects. The output schema provides return structure, but behavioral details are absent.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the action, resource, and identifier.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable. It explains the basic operation but lacks contextual guidance on when to use it relative to siblings and edge-case behavior.

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, so the description must clarify the single 'id' parameter. It only says 'by ID', which maps directly to the parameter name without adding format, constraints, or context. This is minimal 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 action 'Get', the target 'specific Cypher snippet', and the identifier 'by ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_cypher_snippets and search_cypher_snippets by emphasizing a single, specific item.

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

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

The description implies usage when you already have the snippet ID, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like search_cypher_snippets or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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 responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get all tags...' without mentioning that this is a read-only operation, whether any authentication is required, how tags are aggregated, or what the response shape will be. The minimal wording adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary padding. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is largely sufficient. However, it lacks a brief note about the scope (e.g., tags across all snippets) or mention of related tools, but these are not critical for a simple read-only tag listing. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 zero parameters, so by the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none, and no additional semantic information is needed for parameters.

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

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

The description 'Get all tags used for Cypher snippets' clearly states the action (get all) and the resource (tags for Cypher snippets), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with snippets themselves. It is specific and unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_cypher_snippets or list_cypher_snippets. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the notable behavior that an active incarnation will return its specialized hub instead, and states the return type as an MCP response. This goes beyond a simple read-only operation, though it does not cover potential errors or side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence reinforces the hub's role but is somewhat redundant with the first. The 'Returns' line is trivially redundant given the output schema, but overall the structure is clear and scannable.

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 (no parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains the main purpose, the incarnation-specific override, and the return type. There are no missing elements that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage (100%). The baseline score of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter details. The mention of 'incarnation' behavior indirectly relates to context but does not conflict with the empty schema.

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

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

The description states 'Get the AI Guidance Hub content' clearly identifying the verb and resource, and further positions it as 'the central entry point for navigation,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_best_practices and get_current_incarnation. The special-case mention of incarnation-specific hubs adds unique functionality 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 when to use the tool by describing it as the 'main entry point for AI assistants to understand what capabilities are available,' suggesting it should be invoked for initial navigation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, leaving room for more explicit guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not mention error cases (e.g., not found), authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure with notable 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains zero superfluous 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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. With one parameter fully documented in the schema and a simple retrieval operation, the description is largely complete. It could add edge-case handling, but for such a straightforward tool it is adequate.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, project_id, has a clear description in the schema ('ID of the project to retrieve'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description 'Get details about a specific project' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('project'), clearly indicating a single-item retrieval. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tool list_projects by emphasizing 'specific' rather than a collection, even without naming alternatives.

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

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

The description implies usage context: use this tool when you need a single project's details, especially compared to list_projects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation but does not state whether it is read-only, what happens if the ID does not exist, or any permission requirements. This lacks transparency for a tool that could fail or have side effects.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus list_tool_proposals or how to handle potential errors. It does not fully contextualize the tool within its sibling group.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter fully described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, only repeating that it retrieves by ID. 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 tool's function: retrieving a specific tool proposal by its ID. The verb 'Get' and resource 'tool proposal' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from list_tool_proposals by specifying 'by ID', so the agent can tell this is for single-item 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 implies usage when you have a specific proposal ID, contrasting with listing operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion or comparison with sibling tools like list_tool_proposals.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a specific tool request by ID' without mentioning read-only behavior, error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), permission requirements, or what fields are returned. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read, but the description adds no substantive behavioral context beyond that.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording or redundant detail, making it highly efficient.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter get-by-ID tool, the description is minimally adequate: the parameter is fully documented, and an output schema exists to define the return value. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and explicit usage guidance, which leaves minor gaps in the complete context an agent would need.

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%, as the single 'id' parameter is described as 'ID of the tool request to retrieve.' The tool description's 'by ID' adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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'), the resource ('tool request'), and the scope ('by ID'). This distinguishes it immediately from sibling tools like list_tool_requests (which lists all) and get_tool_proposal (a different resource).

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

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

The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool should be used when a specific request ID is known, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. It does not name sibling tools like list_tool_requests, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'View history' which implies read-only, but does not explicitly state side effects, result ordering, or any other behavioral traits. 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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource.

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

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

The description is adequate for a simple read tool, especially with full parameter coverage and an output schema. However, it lacks any usage context or caveats (e.g., ordering, pagination), which could be important for correct invocation. A 3 reflects this balance.

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

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

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (limit, project_id, action_keyword) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the generic 'optionally filtered', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('View') and the resource ('history of workflow executions'), and mentions optional filtering. It is distinct from sibling tools like log_workflow_execution, which is the write counterpart.

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

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

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the verb 'View' but there are no exclusions or references to other tools, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It only states 'List all available action templates' without mentioning the return format, the default current_only=true filter (which ironically may conflict with 'all'), or any prerequisites or side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

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

The description is a single five-word sentence, perfectly front-loaded and free of any filler or redundant 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?

For a simple list operation with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks mention of filtering behavior and differentiation from get_action_template, but the schema and tool name compensate for these 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 already provides complete descriptions and defaults for both keyword and current_only parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra value. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully handles parameter meaning.

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

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

The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'action templates', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling get_action_template by indicating it returns all templates rather than a single one.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'List' but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_action_template. No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe pagination, sorting, or the response format. The phrase 'optional filtering' hints at behavior but lacks specifics.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the core purpose. However, it is under-specified, bordering on terse, as it omits important details such as the available filters. It is not excessively wordy, but it sacrifices clarity for 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?

Given 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain the filtering options, pagination behavior, or the nature of the returned snippets. The presence of an output schema does not cover usage semantics.

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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining the filtering criteria and pagination. However, it only says 'optional filtering' without naming tag, since_version, limit, or offset. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema's defaults.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (List) and resource (all available Cypher snippets) with optional filtering. It is specific enough to understand the basic purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'search_cypher_snippets'.

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 search_cypher_snippets or get_cypher_snippet. It does not mention context, prerequisites, 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, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state this, nor does it mention any authentication requirements, side effects, or return format details. The word 'all' provides some scope transparency but not enough to understand tool behavior 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, concise sentence that effectively states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is under-specified relative to more complex tools but is appropriately sized for a simple list operation. It is not overly verbose, but it lacks additional context that could improve usefulness.

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 is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema, the description's brevity is partly justified. However, it does not mention what the output represents, whether it is ordered, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_current_incarnation or switch_incarnation. It is minimally complete but leaves the agent guessing about practical 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 tool has zero parameters, which yields a baseline score of 4. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the schema confirms an empty parameter object. The description’s simplicity is appropriate here.

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 available incarnations' uses a clear verb (list) and resource (incarnations), indicating a straightforward read operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_current_incarnation and switch_incarnation, which clearly serve different purposes. However, it lacks details on what 'available' means or how this listing fits into the broader workflow.

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. There is no mention of scenarios where listing all incarnations is appropriate, nor any exclusions or references to sibling tools. The description simply states the action without contextual advice.

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 burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'all available projects,' but the schema includes a 'limit' parameter with a default of 10, implying the tool does not actually return all projects by default. It also fails to mention default behavior, pagination, or filtering semantics, which is a notable transparency gap.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and communicates the core action immediately, earning a high conciseness score even though it lacks depth.

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

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

For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It omits critical context such as the default limit, language filtering, pagination, and how it relates to sibling tools. The conflict between 'all' and the limit parameter further reduces 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%, as both parameters ('limit' and 'language') have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter insight, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all available projects.' It clearly indicates this is a listing operation, distinct from the singular 'get_project' sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state how it differs from other list tools or mention the scope/filtering options.

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

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

The description implies this tool is used when you need to view all projects, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_project or other list tools. It would benefit from noting that get_project is for a single project and that filtering/pagination parameters are 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 states the basic operation ('List') but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any permissions needed, pagination behavior, or ordering. The word 'List' implies non-mutation, but this is not explicit.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence that conveys the essential function and scope without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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

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

This is a simple list tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema present. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the primary use case and invoke it correctly. Minor gaps like whether it scopes to a project/incarnation are not critical given the simplicity and existing schema.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit, status) are already well-documented. The description's phrase 'optional filtering' adds minimal context by indicating that status is the filter, but it does not add any detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tool proposals') and clarifies scope with 'all' and 'optional filtering'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_tool_proposal (single proposal) and propose_tool (create).

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

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

The phrase 'List all tool proposals' implies the tool is for retrieving a collection of proposals, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_tool_proposal for a single proposal'). Usage guidance is present but only implied.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It merely says 'List all tool requests' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral details like pagination, sorting, or potential side effects. The description adds little beyond the tool's name.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the key information. It is efficient and easy to understand, earning a high score for conciseness.

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

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

For a simple list tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any elaboration on ordering, default behavior, or access constraints, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations. It completes the task but doesn't exceed expectations.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for limit, status, and priority. The description only mentions 'optional filtering' without elaborating on the parameters, so it adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists tool requests with optional filtering, using a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_tool_proposals or get_tool_request, but the mention of 'all' and 'optional filtering' gives it reasonable 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_tool_request for a specific request or list_tool_proposals for proposals. It simply states what it does without any exclusions or contextual hints.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the usage condition (after tests) but does not detail side effects, persistence, auth requirements, or whether it can be called multiple times. It is adequate but not rich.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object, and includes the key condition. Every word contributes, with no fluff.

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

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

For a simple logging tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core purpose and usage condition. It could mention repeated calls or idempotency, but the current level is adequate.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with every parameter documented. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Record' and object 'workflow execution', clearly stating the tool's action. The condition 'ONLY after passing tests' adds precision and distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_workflow_history.

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

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

The description provides an explicit condition for use: 'ONLY after passing tests'. This clearly implies when it should be used, though it does not mention alternative tools or situations where it should not be used beyond that condition.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the proposal is persisted, reviewed, or requires permissions. The description is too terse to inform the agent about side effects or outcomes.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and 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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, but the description lacks context about expected usage flows, prerequisites, or what happens after proposing. An output schema exists but is not visible here; still, the description could be more informative for a tool with no annotations.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for high 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 verb ('Propose') and resource ('new tool for the NeoCoder system'), making the primary purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'suggest_tool' or 'request_tool', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 like 'suggest_tool' or 'request_tool'. There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Request' without detailing side effects, whether it persists data, required permissions, or what the response looks like. This is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential context, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise. It earns a middle score for brevity without sacrificing the little meaning it does convey.

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 has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description should at least clarify the purpose and any relevant context, but it does not. It fails to explain when to use it or what the request entails, leaving significant gaps in understanding for the agent.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Request' and the resource 'new tool feature' for the NeoCoder system. It conveys the core purpose without ambiguity, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'propose_tool' or 'suggest_tool'.

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 simply states what it does, without any context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions running a custom query but does not disclose that arbitrary Cypher can mutate data, delete records, or have side effects, nor does it mention permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive tool.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action. However, it is so minimal that it lacks richness. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool, so it earns a 4.

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 ability to execute arbitrary Cypher, the description is incomplete. It lacks warnings about side effects, guidance on parameter use, and when to invoke this tool versus safer alternatives. Even though the schema covers parameters and output, the contextual risk profile is not addressed.

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

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

The input schema fully documents both parameters (query and params), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how params are used or examples. Therefore, the score remains at the baseline.

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 runs a custom Cypher query, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself as a general-purpose query runner for advanced operations, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like write_neo4j_cypher.

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

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

The phrase 'for advanced operations' implies usage for scenarios beyond standard tool capabilities, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as write_neo4j_cypher or standard CRUD tools. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and offers very little. It discloses no behavioral traits such as how search_type changes the search (text, tag, pattern), whether matching is exact or fuzzy, case sensitivity, or how limit affects results. The description essentially restates the tool's name and adds no insight into its inner workings.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource. While it's brief, it's structurally efficient for the limited content it provides, earning a solid score for conciseness.

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

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

With a simple schema and an output schema present, the description still falls short. It does not explain search semantics, how to choose between text/tag/pattern, or the behavior of limit. The lack of usage guidance and parameter explanation makes the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly in various scenarios.

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 mentions 'keyword, tag, or pattern' which loosely maps to search_type but doesn't explain the exact meaning of query_text, limit, or how search_type selects the search mode. Limit is entirely ignored. This minimal mention does not sufficiently clarify the parameters.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'Cypher snippets' with specific criteria ('by keyword, tag, or pattern'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cypher_snippets (which probably lists all) and get_cypher_snippet (which retrieves one), though it doesn't explicitly name these 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this should be used over list_cypher_snippets for filtering or when a user needs to find snippets by specific search terms. The description simply states what it does, not the context of 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?

The description only restates the basic behavior without disclosing any additional behavioral traits, such as whether the suggestion is based on heuristics, whether multiple suggestions are returned, or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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

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

The description is a single, focused sentence that gets straight to the point. It is concise and well-structured 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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and input. However, it lacks usage guidance and makes no attempt to address when to use the tool, which is a notable gap for 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 already documents the single parameter (task_description) with a clear description, and the tool description aligns with it. There is no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's action: suggesting an appropriate tool given a task description. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like propose_tool or request_tool, though the name provides some 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate. It simply states the function without 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing potential side effects, reversibility, authentication requirements, or whether the switch disrupts ongoing operations.

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 redundant wording. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite the output schema and simple parameter set, the description lacks essential context about the consequences of switching, when it should be invoked, and how it relates to the get/list incarnation tools. The description is too minimal for a state-changing 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to 'incarnation_type', but the schema already provides a clear title and description, so no deduction is warranted.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Switch') on a specific resource ('server') to a different 'incarnation', which distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like get_current_incarnation and list_incarnations. However, it does not elaborate on what an incarnation is or the implications of switching.

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 such as get_current_incarnation or list_incarnations. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies modification ('Update') and existence ('existing'), but does not disclose partial vs full update behavior, error handling, idempotency, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise, though it omits crucial detail. The efficiency is good, but the structure is 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?

For a complex tool with 7 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the update semantics, whether the snippet must exist, or what fields are updatable. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still fails to provide necessary behavioral 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 schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no parameter context. It does not mention which fields can be updated, that 'id' is required, or any defaults. The description adds no value beyond the schema's parameter names and types.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing Cypher snippet'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, or list. It is concise and unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does not mention that this should be used only for existing snippets or that other tools should be used for creation or deletion.

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. It states the tool performs writes but omits that it can also delete data (as shown in the schema) and does not mention side effects, irreversibility, or transaction behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. The parenthetical 'for creating/updating data' is slightly misleading because it excludes DELETE, but overall the description is appropriately concise.

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

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

The tool has a simple schema and an output schema, so return values need no explanation. However, the description lacks critical context for a write tool: it does not mention that DELETE is allowed, nor does it address side effects, prerequisites, or when to avoid this tool. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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 100% with meaningful descriptions for both query and params. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

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

The description clearly states it executes a WRITE Cypher query for creating/updating data, using a specific verb and resource. The uppercase 'WRITE' distinguishes it from read-only query tools, and the tool name reinforces the intent.

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

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

The description implies this tool should be used for write operations (creating/updating data) but does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like run_custom_query for read queries. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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