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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states the action, but omits side effects, visibility, character limits, or notification triggers. Minimal 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?

Single sentence is concise but lacks depth. Not overly verbose, however the brevity sacrifices valuable 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description does not fill gaps. Missing return value, side effects, or prerequisites. Incomplete for the available 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain parameters' meaning, format, or constraints beyond their names. No added value over 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?

Clearly states the action ('Add a comment / journal entry') and target ('a card'), with examples of use cases ('status updates, notes, decisions'). Differentiates from siblings like create_note or update_card.

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?

Provides implied usage examples but does not specify when not to use or mention alternative tools. Lacks explicit guidance on preconditions 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, description carries full burden. Discloses key behavioral trait: soft-delete recoverable from Archive view. Adequate for a simple action but could mention permissions 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with action and key detail in parentheses. No waste.

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

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

For a simple tool with 1 param and no output schema, description covers core purpose and behavioral trait. Lacks return value info but is nearly 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?

Single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage. Description does not explain that 'id' refers to the card ID, nor provides format or context, leaving the agent to infer.

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?

Clearly states action 'Archive a card' with specific verb-resource pair. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_card, update_card, and search_cards by indicating it's an archiving operation, not a permanent deletion.

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?

Implies usage for soft-deletion with recoverability, providing context on when to use. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but given no sibling delete tool, it's the only option for removal.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key side effect (spawning 3 default columns), but lacks information on permissions, error handling, or reversibility of the 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no 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 creation tool with 4 parameters (2 optional with enums), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't document the return value, the effect of layout and displayMode, or the exact behavior of default column creation.

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 adds meaning for 'spaceId' and 'name' (implied by 'inside a space' and 'name'), but fails to explain optional parameters 'layout' and 'displayMode' which have enums.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a new board inside a space'), and distinguishes from siblings by noting the side effect of spawning 3 default columns, which create_column or create_space do not do.

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

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

The description implies usage for creating boards in spaces but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the fallback behavior of boardId and workspace inheritance, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. It is adequate but not thorough.

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, no unnecessary words. The key action and the most important parameter nuance are 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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits many behavioral and semantic details (e.g., effect of isEpic, tagIds, return value). It is too sparse for a complex creation 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 coverage is low (20%), but the description clarifies the crucial relationship between boardId and columnId. The other 8 parameters are not explained beyond their schema names and types, leaving ambiguity.

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

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

Clear verb 'create' and resource 'task card' are stated. The description distinguishes the tool from siblings like archive_card or update_card by specifying the action of creating. The detail about columnId vs boardId adds precision.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use columnId (precise placement) versus boardId (uses first column) is provided. It also mentions workspace inheritance. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention side effects, authorization needs, idempotency, or potential errors (e.g., duplicate column). This lack of detail hinders an agent's understanding of the tool's impact.

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, making it concise. However, it is too concise—it omits critical details that would aid an agent. It could be restructured to include parameter information and usage context without being 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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is marginally adequate. An agent can infer the basic operation, but the lack of details on return value, error handling, or column semantics reduces completeness. Sibling tools do not provide additional guidance.

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 does not explicitly define the parameters' meaning or usage. The phrase 'in a board' implies boardId, and 'new column (status)' hints at the name parameter, but this is minimal and relies on inference. Baseline score is 3 because schema coverage is low but the context provides some understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (create) and resource (column) with context of board. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_board, create_card, etc. However, it is very brief and could be more explicit about what a column represents.

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, prerequisites, or conditions for use. The description does not indicate when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for different 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?

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action of creating a note and a condition for workspaceId, omitting details on permissions, side effects, data format, or what happens upon creation.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it lacks necessary information. It is not front-loaded with key details, and while short, it does not fully earn its place due to missing content.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 params with 0% coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what a note is, how it relates to similar tools, or what the expected outcome is, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 only partially addresses workspaceId (when required), but says nothing about body or title, which are critical for understanding how to use the tool.

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 'Create a new note' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It mentions a key condition for workspaceId, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_journal_entry or create_card, relying on the tool name for distinction.

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

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

The description only provides a conditional note about workspaceId when multiple workspaces exist. It offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_card or add_journal_entry, and does not mention when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses no side effects, permissions required, or any behavioral details beyond the basic action. For example, it doesn't state if space creation is immediate or if there are 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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be too terse, lacking essential 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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or any constraints (e.g., unique names).

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 tool description adds no information about parameters like 'icon', 'name', 'color', or 'workspaceId'. The agent gains no understanding of what these parameters represent or their 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 explicitly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('space'), and provides context ('top-level container within a workspace'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_board' or 'create_card'.

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. For instance, it doesn't mention prerequisites like 'workspaceId' is needed, nor does it suggest using 'list_spaces' first.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly describes the return payload (full details), but does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation, mention authentication requirements, or disclose potential errors (e.g., invalid ID). The lack of side-effect transparency is mitigated by the 'get' verb, but not fully addressed.

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, front-loaded with the action and result. Every word is meaningful, listing specific content. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail. Excellent 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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the returned data. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable. The description is nearly complete for its purpose.

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%, and the description does not explain the single 'id' parameter. Although the tool name and schema imply 'id' is the card identifier, the description adds no additional meaning (e.g., format, source, required, or constraints). With one required param and no description, the agent must infer usage, which is a gap.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns a single card with full details, listing specific contents (description, tags, journals, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cards (for multiple cards) and search_cards (for filtering). The verb 'Return' and resource 'card' are specific, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description implies use when needing full details of one card, but does not explicitly address when to use alternatives (e.g., list_cards for a list, search_cards for filtering, get_note for notes). There is no 'when not to use' or mention of prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity 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 provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions returning 'full body' but does not specify if the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, no wasted words. Appropriate length for the simple operation.

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?

Adequate for a basic get-by-id operation, but lacks details on return format, error handling, or relationship to siblings like search_notes. Could be more complete with minimal expansion.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds only 'by id' to the parameter 'id', which is minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's type and requirement.

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 full body of a note by its id, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like 'create_note' or 'search_notes' that perform different operations.

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., search_notes). It implies you need a note id, but no explicit context 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it is a read-only listing operation. Mentions output fields (workspaceId, spaceId) but lacks details on permissions, pagination, 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?

Two succinct sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, filter capability, output hint.

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?

No output schema and no annotations. Description covers basic listing and filtering but omits details on pagination, ordering, other possible fields, or limits. Adequate for a simple list but leaves 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 0% but description adds meaning by explaining that workspaceId and spaceId serve as optional filters and that each board includes these IDs in the response. This provides context beyond the plain 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?

Clear verb+resource combination ('List boards'). Mentions filtering by workspaceId/spaceId and that each board includes those IDs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cards or list_spaces.

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?

Implies usage context (filtering by workspaceId/spaceId) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like list_workspaces or list_spaces. No when-not conditions stated.

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 provided. Description lacks behavioral details such as pagination (limit parameter exists), ordering, read-only nature, authentication requirements, or performance constraints. Minimal behavioral context beyond listing summaries.

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?

Very concise two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. 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?

No output schema, description only mentions three IDs included in each card. Lacks information about return format, count, or sorting. Incomplete for a 6-parameter tool with no schema 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 coverage 0%, description lists 5 of 6 parameters but omits 'limit'. No descriptions for data types, formats, or relationships between parameters. Insufficient for understanding parameter usage.

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

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

Description clearly states it lists card summaries and specifies included fields (workspaceId, boardId, columnId). Distinguishes from get_card (single card) but not explicitly from search_cards or other listing siblings.

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

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

Lists available filters but no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_cards. Implied usage from filters but no when-not-to-use context.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions ordered left-to-right, which is behavioral, but does not disclose auth needs, error handling, or read-only nature. Adequate for a simple list 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?

Two sentences: first defines action and ordering, second gives practical usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient 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 no output schema, the description clearly states the action and use case. It might be missing details on return format (e.g., field names for columns), but for a simple list tool it is fairly 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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description does not add details about the boardId parameter (e.g., format, how to obtain). The single parameter is self-explanatory from context, but the description adds no extra value.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'columns (statuses) of a board', and specifies ordering 'left-to-right'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_boards and list_cards.

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?

Explicitly says to use before create_card/update_card to pick the right column by name, providing clear usage context. No mention of when not to use, but the guidance is strong.

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 full burden. It discloses the auto-selection behavior for workspaceId, but does not mention read-only nature, error cases, or return format. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and efficient in conveying behavior without waste.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the key behavioral logic. Could mention return structure, but not critical given tool simplicity.

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%, so description must compensate. It adds substantive meaning to workspaceId by explaining its effect on the query, going beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'spaces', differentiating it from sibling tools that list other entities like boards or cards. The conditional behavior on workspaceId 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 explains when to omit workspaceId (if only one workspace) versus when to provide it, giving clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives, though none exist among 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?

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions scoping and filtering but omits details like response format, pagination, authentication, or behavior when no filter is given (optional parameters).

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?

Extremely concise: three short sentences, no extraneous information, every sentence 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?

Adequate for a simple list tool but missing details like output structure, error conditions, and precise behavior with optional filters. No output schema exacerbates the gap.

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

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

With 0% schema coverage, description barely adds meaning. It says 'Filter by spaceId or workspaceId' without explaining data types, constraints, or behavior when both are provided.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists tags, with specific verb 'List' and resource 'tags'. It is distinct from siblings as no other tag-related tool exists.

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?

Provides clear context: tags are scoped to a space, filterable by spaceId or workspaceId, and useful for resolving tagIds to names. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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 provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains workspace isolation but does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor detail return structure or pagination. Lacks full transparency.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with action ('List all workspaces'), no wasted words. Every sentence serves a purpose: action, context, 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides adequate context: action, isolation semantics, and usage timing. Lacks explicit return description, but given simplicity, it is nearly 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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100% empty). Description adds value by confirming no params needed and adding context ('Call this first'). Achieves baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 resource 'workspaces', clearly stating it lists all workspaces. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining workspace isolation and orienting purpose, which is unique among siblings.

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

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

Explicitly advises 'Call this first to orient yourself', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for typical 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?

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or read-only nature. It only lists event types and the purpose, missing critical details.

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

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

The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main idea, but the list of event types could be formatted better.

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

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

For a tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description lacks information about return format, pagination, and how to interpret results.

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 description adds no explanation for the three parameters beyond the schema's minimal coverage (33%). It does not describe what 'limit', 'since', or 'workspaceId' do.

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 provides an activity feed with specific event types and answers 'what did I do recently', making the purpose distinct from list/search 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 gives a use case ('what did I do recently') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or exclude cases.

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. It mentions full-text search and optional scoping, but does not explain case sensitivity, default limit, pagination, ordering, or whether archived cards are included by default (the includeArchived parameter exists but behavior not described).

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 very concise: two sentences with clear, front-loaded information. No wasted words or redundancy.

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

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

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover all parameters, explain return format, or provide usage context beyond basic scoping, leaving the agent with significant 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 schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only explains 'query' and the optional scoping of 'workspaceId' and 'boardId', omitting 'limit' and 'includeArchived'. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for these two 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 that the tool performs full-text search across card titles and descriptions with optional scoping by workspaceId or boardId. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_notes (which searches notes) and list_cards (which lists without full-text search).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_notes) or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites or when scoping is beneficial beyond the 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?

No annotations provided, and description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or whether it returns full notes or summaries. Missing critical context for a search 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?

Description is very concise (2 sentences) with no wasted words. However, it is too terse and sacrifices necessary detail, making it less useful.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks info on return format, pagination, errors, or usage constraints.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only mentions query and workspaceId vaguely. Does not explain limit parameter or query matching behavior. Adds minimal value beyond 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?

Description clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'notes', and mentions scope to workspace. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'search_cards', which might have similar purpose.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_cards, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites. Agent lacks context for tool 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 carries the full burden. It discloses that results are based on the local timezone of the process, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The description 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 very concise—two sentences that front-load the main purpose. No unnecessary words, and every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description provides the core functionality. However, it lacks context on what 'scheduled' means (e.g., due date or something else) and does not describe the return format. With no output schema and many sibling tools, more detail 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It explains dayOffset with examples (1 for tomorrow, -1 for yesterday) and mentions filtering by workspaceId. This adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not specify the type or range of dayOffset, and workspaceId is only described as a filter without further 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 returns cards scheduled for today. The verb 'Return' and resource 'cards scheduled for today' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_cards or search_cards, which might also return cards with date filters.

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

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

The description provides some usage context (e.g., using dayOffset for tomorrow/yesterday, filtering by workspaceId) but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_cards or search_cards. No when-not-to-use guidance is 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?

Discloses that patch.columnId moves the card and done:true marks completion, but omits side effects like notifications, permissions, or reversibility. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides only partial 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loads purpose, then provides critical usage nuance. Every sentence 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?

Covers core update behavior and two key fields, but doesn't explain all 9 patch fields, return values (no output schema), or interaction with sibling tools. Adequate for basic use but lacks full guidance for complex 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?

Adds meaning to key parameters (columnId, done), but the schema has 9 optional fields in patch, and many (e.g., deadline, priority, parentCardId) are left unexplained. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates partially but insufficiently.

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 'Update card fields', specifies the key operation of moving cards via patch.columnId, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_card or archive_card by focusing on updates.

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?

Provides a useful tip to omit unchanged fields, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., archive_card for archiving, create_card for new cards). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully describes the return values and implies a read-only operation. While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only,' the context is sufficient for an agent to understand it's non-destructive.

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, no fluff. First sentence states purpose and outputs; second sentence gives a usage hint. Every sentence 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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully explains return values and usage context. It is complete and sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 4 applies as the schema is fully covered.

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 identifies the user and environment, listing specific return fields (email, timezone, URL, workspaces). The name 'whoami' is distinctive among siblings, so no confusion.

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 advises to 'Call first when you need user context,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, though none are needed for this unique tool.

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