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 only states 'Create a new progress bar' without revealing what happens if a slug already exists, whether creation overwrites data, or what side effects occur. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity comes at the expense of valuable context. This is a good score for structure but low on content richness.

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

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

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations. It does not explain the meaning or constraints of the parameters, nor does it address common failure modes like duplicate slugs. The description is too minimal for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description mentions none of the parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema titles provide, failing to explain the purpose or relationship of slug, label, current, and max_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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('progress bar'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tpb_update, tpb_increment, and tpb_remove by focusing on the creation operation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when creation is appropriate, prerequisites, or any exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual decision-making information.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states the action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, or whether the progress bar must already exist. Lacks transparency about behavioral consequences.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's apparent 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?

The description is minimal and leaves out critical context such as parameter usage, when to use, and any behavioral details. Despite low complexity, it should include more to be fully complete, especially without 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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of the 'slug' and 'status_text' parameters. Even though names hint at their roles, the description adds no semantic value over the raw 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 'Mark a progress bar as completed' is a specific verb+resource action that clearly distinguishes from siblings like tpb_create, tpb_update, and tpb_increment. It directly states the purpose of the tool.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a state mutation (marking as failed), but does not explain side effects, reversibility, required prior state, or any other behavioral traits beyond the literal action. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence, clearly front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but the brevity leaves out important details, preventing a perfect score. It earns a 4 for efficiency, not for completeness.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description should still clarify parameter meanings and usage context. It does not, leaving the agent with incomplete information. The description is not fully adequate for a tool with two parameters and no other 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about the parameters (slug and status_text). The agent is left to infer what these parameters mean from their names alone, which is insufficient for reliable invocation. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 and resource: 'Mark a progress bar as failed.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing the purpose from siblings like tpb_done (mark as done) and tpb_increment. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or differentiate from them.

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 the sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.

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 itself convey behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'structured status' hints at the return format. However, there is no disclosure about failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the slug does not exist) or whether the tool has side effects, so transparency is incomplete.

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 gets straight to the point. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is appropriately sized for such a 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?

The tool is simple, and an output schema exists to clarify return values. However, the description lacks any usage context (e.g., when to call this vs. tpb_list) and does not mention potential error cases. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps that an agent might need to guess.

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 mention the 'slug' parameter. The parameter is self-explanatory as an identifier, but the tool description provides zero guidance on how to obtain or format the slug, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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 'Get structured status for a single progress bar,' using a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('progress bar'), and a scope ('single'). This distinguishes it from siblings like tpb_list (which likely returns multiple bars) and tpb_create/tpb_update (which modify).

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention how it relates to tpb_list, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a slug from a prior creation call. The tool's purpose is implied but never explicitly contrasted with 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, the description should disclose side effects and safety profile, but it only describes the operation. It does not mention whether the tool modifies existing records, what happens if the slug is not found, or whether it is subject to rate limits or permissions.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core operation. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a 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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits essential context about the slug parameter, error handling, and selection criteria relative to siblings. The output schema exists but does not reduce the need for basic usage 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 description explains the delta parameter (positive increments, negative decrements) but leaves the slug parameter completely unexplained. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate for both 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 tool increments or decrements progress by a delta, with negative values for decrement. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like tpb_update or tpb_create.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tpb_update or tpb_set. The only usage note is about negative delta values, which is a parameter instruction, not a tool selection guideline.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read-only listing operation with no side effects, and specifies the ordering (creation order), which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space.

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

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

For a simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: what is listed and in what order. It does not mention edge cases like empty results, but this is minor given the 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete and there is nothing additional to explain. The baseline of 4 applies as there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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

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

The description 'List all progress bars in creation order' uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('progress bars'), and specifies ordering. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like tpb_get (single item retrieval) by indicating it returns all items.

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 retrieving the full collection, and the sibling names suggest tpb_get is for individual items. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the action but not side effects, prerequisites (e.g., whether the progress bar must exist), or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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

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

With two required parameters and no param descriptions, the description is too terse. It doesn't clarify the role of slug/text, and the existing output schema is not leveraged in the description to explain return values.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'status message' without explaining the 'slug' or 'text' parameters. Inferring slug as the progress bar identifier is left entirely to the agent.

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 'Set or update' and identifies the resource as 'status message shown below a progress bar.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tpb_create or tpb_increment.

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 like tpb_update or tpb_create. The context 'below a progress bar' is helpful but doesn't state exclusions or 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether removal is permanent, if it cascades to associated data, or if any permissions are required. The word 'remove' implies a mutating action but lacks critical 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 sentence with no filler words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded to mention the 'slug' parameter without becoming verbose, which would improve completeness without sacrificing 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 tool with one parameter, an output schema exists but no details are given. The description does not cover success/failure behavior, side effects, or return values. Given the lack of annotations and parameter explanation, the description is insufficiently complete for an AI agent to confidently invoke it.

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 one required parameter 'slug' with no description, and the tool description does not explain what 'slug' refers to. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate by clarifying the parameter's meaning and format, but it does not.

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 'Remove a progress bar.' uses a specific verb ('remove') and a specific resource ('progress bar'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like tpb_create, tpb_update, and tpb_increment. It is concise and unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does (remove a progress bar) without any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative deletion/finishing options like tpb_done.

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 only states the action without covering side effects, requirements (e.g., bar must exist), idempotency, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this lacks necessary 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While it is concise, it borders on under-specification, but for what it says, it is efficiently 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?

Although the tool has an output schema, the description lacks essential context about behavior, prerequisites, or edge cases. The overall picture is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the parameters. 'Slug' and 'value' are ambiguous: what does the slug reference, and what are the constraints or format for the integer value? The description fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: setting an absolute progress value for a bar. The use of 'absolute' distinguishes it from sibling tools like tpb_increment, which likely handles relative changes. This is a specific verb+resource pair with clear 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 implies when to use this tool via the word 'absolute,' suggesting it is for setting an exact value rather than incrementing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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