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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint true, so the description's warning ('sent to all users') reinforces this without adding new behavioral insights. The description does not disclose potential side effects like rate limits, quota usage, or message delivery guarantees, but the annotation reduces the burden. It adds some value by describing layout options.

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 three sentences: purpose, layout support, and warning. It is concise, front-loaded with the key action, and each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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

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

Given the extreme complexity of the input schema (nested objects, many optional structures) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not cover return values, error handling, or how to construct the message beyond layout types. The agent would need extensive external knowledge to use this tool effectively.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'message', and the description only provides minimal guidance ('Supports bubble and carousel layouts'). It does not explain the structure or common properties of the message object, leaving the agent to parse the complex schema without added semantic help. The description fails to compensate adequately for the lack of schema 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 states the tool broadcasts a flex message to all LINE Official Account users, with specific verb (broadcast) and resource (flex message). It distinguishes from siblings like push_flex_message by noting 'all users' and from text messages by specifying 'flex message'. The mention of bubble and carousel layouts adds 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 explicitly states this sends to all users, which clearly distinguishes it from push tools that send to specific users. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for targeted messages) or provide alternatives. The warning about sending to all users adds appropriate 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?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true. The description adds meaningful context by explicitly stating the broadcast scope ('to all users who have followed your LINE Official Account') and the warning about sending to all users. This complements the annotation without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action definition and behavioral warning. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 lacking output schema, the tool is simple. The description fully covers what the tool does (broadcast text), how (plain text), and the scope (all followers). No missing critical information.

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 clarifies that the message is 'plain text' and 'without formatting', adding semantic value beyond the schema's 'const: text' and string constraints.

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 'Broadcast' and the resource 'simple text message via LINE to all users who have followed your LINE Official Account'. It distinguishes from siblings 'broadcast_flex_message' and 'push_text_message' by specifying plain text and broadcast 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 says 'Use this for sending plain text messages without formatting' which implies when to use. It also warns 'this message will be sent to all users', but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like push_text_message for specific users.

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 annotation already indicates destructiveHint: true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'cancel', not explaining consequences or reversibility.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with no wasted words, appropriate for the simple action.

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, destructive annotation), the description is adequate but lacks explanation of what 'default' means or the impact, leaving some context missing.

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

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

With zero parameters, no further documentation is needed. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not add redundant info.

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 ('cancel') and the resource ('default rich menu'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like set_rich_menu_default, though it does not explicitly differentiate when to use which.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_rich_menu_default). The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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?

Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true. The description adds that the rich menu becomes the default, which is useful context. However, it does not detail side effects like overwriting existing defaults or quota implications.

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?

Two sentences with some redundancy ('Generate and upload' repeats the idea). Could be more concise. Contains key information but not optimally structured.

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

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

Missing details about image generation (does it require an image URL? auto-generate?), and the confirmation that it becomes default. With no output schema, the description should explain return value but doesn't. Adequate but not complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides, but this is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states it creates a rich menu and registers it as default. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete, cancel, set default. However, some redundancy and singular/plural inconsistency slightly reduce 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain prerequisites, such as whether a rich menu already exists or how it interacts with other rich menu operations.

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?

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, and the description is consistent but adds no further behavioral context (e.g., permanence or consequences). It does not contradict annotations.

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

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

Single sentence, 11 words, no wasted content. 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?

Given the simple interface (one param, no output schema, destructive annotation), the description provides the essential purpose and parameter. Could mention return status or implications with default rich menu, but adequate for low complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'richMenuId', and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema description.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'rich menu' from the 'LINE Official Account', distinguishing it from siblings like create_rich_menu or set_rich_menu_default.

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 the tool, prerequisites (e.g., cannot delete if set as default), or alternatives. The destructive hint is in annotations but not mentioned in the description.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context. It mentions that the tool obtains user IDs for messaging, which is a benign consequence. No additional details about pagination, rate limits, or other behaviors beyond the read-only nature are disclosed. The description adds minimal value over annotations.

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

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

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the secondary sentence adds context. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

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

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the result (list of user IDs) and its utility. However, it does not explicitly mention that the response includes a continuation token for pagination, which is a minor gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for basic 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 100% description coverage for both parameters (limit and start), so the description does not need to elaborate further. It provides no additional semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema. 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 action ('Get a list of user IDs of users who have added the LINE Official Account as a friend') and specifies the resource (follower user IDs). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_profile (single user) and broadcast/push tools (sending messages). The purpose 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 implies usage context: obtaining user IDs for sending messages without manual preparation. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare with alternatives like get_profile for individual IDs. Guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds context about monthly message limit and current usage, which is valuable beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, clear and front-loaded with no extraneous 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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose for a simple read-only operation with no parameters and no output schema.

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

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

No parameters exist in the schema; description adds no parameter details, but baseline is 4 for 0-parameter tools with 100% schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'message quota and consumption'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are about sending messages or managing rich menus.

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

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

The description implies usage for checking quota before sending messages, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds value by specifying what data is returned (display name, profile picture URL, etc.), which is behavioral beyond the annotation. No contradictory 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous words. Every part 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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or access requirements, but acceptable for a read-only tool with 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% (the schema already fully describes the 'userId' parameter with default and description). The tool description does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers, hence baseline 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?

Description clearly states verb 'get' and resource 'detailed profile information of a LINE user', listing specific fields (display name, profile picture URL, status message, language). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about messaging and rich menu management.

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?

Implied usage: retrieving a user's profile. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context from sibling tool names suggests this is the only tool for fetching individual profile data, making usage 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?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds no further behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention output format, pagination, rate limits, or any other traits. For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the nature of the returned data.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about the return value (e.g., whether it returns IDs or full rich menu objects), which would help the agent fully understand the tool's output.

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 and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to the rubric, no parameters defaults to a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add anything beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the list of rich menus for the user's LINE Official Account. It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (rich menus), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_rich_menu or delete_rich_menu.

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

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

The description implies the tool is for reading existing rich menus, but it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since siblings include both read and write operations, some explicit usage guidance would be beneficial.

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?

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description should add behavioral context beyond mutation. It mentions high customizability and layout types, but omits important details like rate limits, recipient requirements, or validation errors.

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?

Two concise sentences with no superfluous information. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and key distinguishing feature (layout types).

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 tool's complexity (large nested schema), the description is very brief. It omits critical information like required altText, recipient constraints, error handling, and references to official documentation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 50%. The description adds value by explaining the two layout types (bubble and carousel), which helps understand the nested message.contents structure. The userId parameter is already well-documented in the schema. Baseline 3 with partial 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 verb 'push' and resource 'flex message', and specifies two layout types (bubble and carousel). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like push_text_message or broadcast_flex_message, but the distinction is implicit.

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 (e.g., push_text_message for simple text, broadcast_flex_message for broadcasting). No prerequisites or context 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?

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, so description carries lower burden. Description adds minimal extra context beyond that it pushes a message. Does not mention potential side effects (e.g., LINE API restrictions, user must be a friend) or rate limits.

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?

Two concise sentences, first sentence dedicated to purpose, second to usage. 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?

Tool has simple parameters and no output schema. Description adequately covers purpose and basic usage but lacks error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., user must be a LINE friend), or integration details. Sufficient for a simple tool but leaves some gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 50% (only message parameter has description). Description mentions 'simple text message' and 'plain text', which relates to message but does not explain the nested structure or userId parameter beyond what schema provides. Lacks compensation for missing schema 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 states the verb 'Push' and resource 'text message to a user via LINE', distinguishing it from sibling tools like broadcast (sends to all) and flex (formatted message) by specifying 'plain text without formatting'.

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 second sentence explicitly states when to use this tool ('for sending plain text messages without formatting'), implying it is not for formatted messages. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for broadcasting) or provide alternatives.

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

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

The 'destructiveHint' annotation already indicates this operation is destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the previous default is replaced or the effect on users. It does not contradict the annotation, but also does not elaborate beyond what the annotation implies.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, though it could be slightly more informative 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 (one parameter, no output schema, destructive hint), the description provides the essential purpose. However, it omits context like the effect on the previous default and any return behavior, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'richMenuId', which is already self-explanatory. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool sets a rich menu as the default. The verb 'set' and resource 'default rich menu' are specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'cancel_rich_menu_default' or 'create_rich_menu', leaving room for ambiguity.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cancel_rich_menu_default'). It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing rich menu to set, nor situations where it should not be used.

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