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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that sub_type_id defaults to 'Report Bug' (27) and that any unspecified field gets the TaskLogger default. This goes beyond the obvious 'create' action and gives agents needed insight into default behavior. It doesn't mention authentication or return value, but for a create operation, the safety profile is clear.

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 long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second explains required fields and default behavior. It is 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?

Given the tool has 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential invocation requirements (required fields, defaults) but doesn't describe the return value or any prerequisite like authentication. However, these may be inferred from the action type. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, giving baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful value by explicitly listing the four required fields and explaining the semantic of omitted optional fields (they get defaults). It also clarifies the specific default for sub_type_id. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 and specifically states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new task.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_task and delete_task by focusing on creation. It also adds specific details about required fields and the default sub_type_id, which makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 by indicating which fields are required and which can be omitted to use defaults. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, but the tool name and description make it obvious this is the creation tool. The guidance about defaults provides useful context for when to omit optional parameters.

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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., permanence, cascading, permissions, idempotency). The word 'delete' implies destruction, but the description adds no useful context.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Perfectly 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?

Simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description is minimally sufficient for a delete action, but it fails to disclose behavioral outcomes (e.g., success/failure indication, irreversibility). Given the absence of annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'id' parameter. The description's phrase 'by its numeric ID' reinforces the schema but adds no new semantic details (e.g., error handling, ID ranges). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a task'), with the specific parameter ('numeric ID'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_task, update_task, and get_task.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mark_task_done or update_task. There is also no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or scenarios where deletion is 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?

There are no annotations provided, and the description doesn't disclose behavioral details such as return format, required authentication, or side effects. Beyond stating that it retrieves available companies, it offers no additional transparency, making it insufficient for a tool with no 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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word adds value.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states what is retrieved and why. It could specify that it returns a list, but that's implied by 'companies' and the nature of the tool.

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

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

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description doesn't add or require parameter semantics.

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

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

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'companies', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve other entities (users, departments, statuses). It also provides context ('for linking to tasks'), clarifying its role.

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 indicates the tool is used when linking tasks to companies, giving a clear use case. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state 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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get available departments.' It doesn't specify return format, whether authentication is required, or any limitations, offering minimal transparency beyond the resource 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 with no filler. It front-loads the key action and resource, achieving maximum efficiency.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, simple list tool, 'Get available departments' conveys the essential purpose. However, without an output schema or details on return structure, it's slightly incomplete, but likely sufficient given the straightforward nature of the 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 zero parameters, so the schema fully covers semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and no further description is needed since there is nothing to explain.

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 available departments' uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_users and get_companies. It unambiguously indicates a read operation for department data.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., login) or typical use cases like populating a dropdown, leaving the agent to infer 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 full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get available priority levels' and does not describe return format, ordering, pagination, or any side effects. This is minimal and lacks useful behavioral context.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately communicates the tool's purpose.

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

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

For a simple getter with no parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, without an output schema, it does not specify the return structure (e.g., array of strings, objects), and no annotations provide additional context, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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

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

The tool has no parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist; the schema is empty and fully covers the invocation.

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 available priority levels, using a specific resource ('priority levels') that distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like get_statuses. It is succinct and unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_statuses or get_problem_types. The description only states the function without 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 provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get available problem types' and offers no information about whether authentication is required, if the operation is read-only, whether the list could be empty, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, earning high marks for brevity. However, it is slightly under-specified—'available problem types' could be interpreted ambiguously—so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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, no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and the action. Still, it omits any context about output format, optional filters, or relationship to the broader task domain, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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

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

The input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). No additional parameter semantics are necessary.

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 available problem types' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (problem types), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_statuses or get_sub_types beyond the resource name, so it lacks the explicit differentiation that would warrant a 5.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., authentication via login), and no exclusions. Given the many sibling get-* tools, this lack of usage direction is a significant gap.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get available task statuses,' implying a read operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, response format, or whether it returns all statuses or just a subset. That lack of detail is a notable gap.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.

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

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

The tool has no params or output schema, and the description is minimal. It adequately conveys the core action but omits context like authentication needs or the nature of the returned data. For a simple zero-param getter, this is a minimum viable description but not 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is inherently complete. The description adds no parameter details (as none exist), but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, indicating there's no missing parameter information 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 tool retrieves 'available task statuses,' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_priorities or status, so it falls short of marking it unique.

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 'status' or 'get_priorities.' It gives no context about prerequisites (e.g., login) or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get available sub-types' and does not disclose return format, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral 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, short sentence with no filler words, making it easy to parse and remember. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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

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

As a simple getter with no output schema, the description minimally indicates the action but does not clarify what a 'sub-type' is or what the response contains. It is adequate but leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 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 'Get' as a specific verb and 'available sub-types' as the resource, but it does not distinguish this from sibling getter tools like get_statuses or get_priorities, and 'sub-types' is ambiguous without additional context.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools. The description simply states the action without any 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 or output schema, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what fields are returned, or behavior for non-existent IDs. The word 'get' implies safe read, but lacks detail.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence that is entirely on-topic with no filler. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema), but without annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the response shape or error scenarios. It does neither, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect after 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 coverage is 100% since 'id' is described as 'Task numeric ID'. The description repeats 'numeric ID' but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies when schema fully documents 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 a single task by its numeric ID' uses a specific verb (get) and resource (task), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_tasks. It precisely identifies the scope (single task) and the key (numeric ID).

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

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

The description implies usage when a specific task ID is known, but it does not explicitly contrast with list_tasks or other sibling tools. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, though the purpose is self-evident.

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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It does not state that the operation is read-only, the response format, or any potential side effects. For a simple lookup tool, this is a gap, though the simplicity reduces the risk.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It directly states the tool's purpose, which is appropriate for a parameterless lookup 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 the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides minimum viable information. However, it does not clarify what the returned categories look like or how they relate to other taxonomy endpoints, leaving some ambiguity for agents.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information because there are none to document.

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') and the resource ('available task categories'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling lookup tools like get_statuses and get_priorities by naming 'task categories' specifically.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of typical use cases (e.g., when creating or editing a task) or why one would choose this over get_statuses or get_priorities.

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get available users' but does not explain what 'available' means, whether the response includes all user fields, or any authentication or filtering behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 leads with the verb 'Get' and immediately conveys the resource and purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It adequately conveys the tool's intent but fails to specify what information is returned (e.g., user IDs, names) or any response structure. This is a minimal but viable description for a simple list 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, so the description carries no burden of parameter explanation. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters. The description does not need to compensate for any schema 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 'Get available users (for assignment)' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'users', with a parenthetical clarifying the intended use case. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve other resources like statuses or priorities.

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 assignment)' provides clear context that this tool is intended for retrieving users who can be assigned tasks, and there are no other user-listing siblings to differentiate. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools for other purposes.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states it lists tasks, with no mention of side effects, permissions, or return format. The 'To mark done' sentence even suggests a mutating behavior not actually present, adding confusion.

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 brief, but the second sentence about marking done is off-topic and doesn't belong in a list tool's description. It would be more concise if limited to listing behavior and filtering guidance.

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 20 parameters and no output schema, yet the description doesn't explain the returned structure, default pagination behavior, or how filters combine. It also omits any mention of alternatives like get_task for single-task lookup, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent to resolve IDs via getter tools (e.g., 'Use get_users/get_statuses/get_priorities/get_problem_types first to find IDs'), which clarifies how to populate filter fields like status_id and priority_id.

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: 'List tasks with pagination, search, and filters.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task (single task) and create/update/delete.

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 advises using get_users/get_statuses/get_priorities/get_problem_types first to find IDs, which is useful context for filtering. However, it includes an unrelated instruction about marking tasks done ('To mark done: set status_id to the Completed status ID and percentage to 100'), which belongs to update_task or mark_task_done and could mislead an agent into thinking list_tasks can modify tasks.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key security behavior: password is never passed as a parameter and stays in env vars only. It also implies token-based session expiration. While it doesn't describe failure modes or session state details, this is adequate for a login 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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence serves a purpose: what it does, how it handles credentials, and when to call it. Excellent use of space for a distinct and simple tool.

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

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

For a simple login tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description is complete. It explains the authentication method, environment variable dependency, and call timing. It adequately covers the tool's use within the broader task management 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 already describes the single parameter with 100% coverage, stating that email reads from env var if omitted. The description reinforces this and additionally clarifies that password is never a parameter, which is not present in the schema. This adds meaningful security context beyond the structured field.

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 the tool's core function with a specific verb ('Authenticate') and resource ('TaskLogger'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from task-related siblings by focusing on authentication and credential handling. The use of environment variables is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 timing guidance: call 'after setting env vars or when tokens expire.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. The context is sufficiently clear for a login tool among task-operation siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that it clears saved auth tokens and that subsequent calls will need login, which are the key behavioral effects. It does not elaborate on edge cases (e.g., calling while already logged out), but the core action is well disclosed.

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, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the primary action and its immediate consequence. Every word contributes to understanding, with 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, no parameters, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what the tool does and what to expect afterward. It is complete for the intended 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per calibration guidelines, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline score of 4, as the description need not elaborate on 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 'Clear' and the resource 'saved auth tokens', making it obvious that this tool logs out the user by removing authentication. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'login' (which would set tokens) and other task-related tools.

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

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

The description implies the tool should be used when you want to end the authenticated session, and the consequence ('Next call will require login') clarifies its role as the counterpart to 'login'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context makes this reasonably clear.

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. It clearly states the behavioral effect (status=Completed, progress=100%) but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or possible error conditions. The disclosed behavior is transparent enough for the tool's simple scope.

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, compact sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose and effect. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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

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

For a one-parameter shortcut with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the outcome. It lacks discussion of return values or edge cases, but the low complexity makes the description 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?

The input schema provides a full description for the id parameter (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already fully documents the only 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 identifies the action: marking a task as completed with 100% progress. It distinguishes itself from the generic update_task by labeling itself a 'Shortcut' and specifying the exact resulting 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 description implies usage as a convenient alternative to update_task but does not explicitly state when to prefer it or mention exclusions. The context is somewhat clear but lacks direct 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states the purpose but does not explicitly disclose side effects, return format, error behavior if unauthenticated, or whether it is a read-only operation. The verb 'Check' hints at safety but does not confirm it.

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. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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

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

The tool is simple (zero parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the core function. However, it lacks details about the response structure (e.g., whether it returns a boolean or user object) and any edge-case behavior such as what happens when not authenticated. More explicit return information would make it more 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain anything further since there is nothing to explain.

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 ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource (authentication status and current user). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like login and logout by focusing on status inspection rather than auth changes.

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: it is the tool to call when you need to know if the user is authenticated and who they are. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention that login/logout cover auth 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 burden of disclosure. It adds the meaningful behavioral trait of partial updates (PATCH-like semantics), which is beyond what 'update' alone conveys. However, it does not disclose return value, permission requirements, validation behavior, or side effects, leaving significant 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 consists of two short, purposeful clauses in a single sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or 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?

The tool has 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It omits information about the return value, error conditions, field semantics, and whether the update is idempotent, making it insufficient for such a parameter-rich 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?

Schema description coverage is only 7% (only the 'id' field is documented). The description's 'Only send fields you want to change' provides a general rule for all 14 optional parameters but fails to explain the meaning of ambiguous fields such as 'hint', 'keep_unread', and 'sub_type_id'. This does not adequately 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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'existing task', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_task and delete_task. The additional phrase 'Only send fields you want to change' clarifies the tool's partial-update scope.

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 a usage rule (send only changed fields) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mark_task_done or create_task. The usage context is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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