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 the tool returns specific data types (token names, class names, current values) and implies it's a read-only operation by linking to 'set_bios_setting'. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get all current BIOS token values') and follows with essential details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states the purpose, usage context, and output semantics. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential behavioral aspects like error cases or data format, though the simplicity of the tool mitigates this 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the output semantics ('Returns token names, class names, and current values'), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. This goes beyond the schema, providing context on what the tool yields.

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 specific action ('Get all current BIOS token values') and resource ('BIOS token values'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_bios_setting' (write operation) and other 'get_' tools that fetch different data types (e.g., 'get_event_log', 'get_firmware_versions'). It explicitly mentions what is returned ('token names, class names, and current values'), 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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs. alternatives by mentioning 'needed for set_bios_setting', indicating it should be used to retrieve current values before making changes with the sibling tool. This provides clear guidance on its role in a workflow, distinguishing it from other 'get_' tools that serve different purposes.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover important traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., pagination, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 front-loads the purpose and scope without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like safety, authentication, or return values, which are crucial for a tool that retrieves system data. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter well-documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but 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 'Get' and resource 'system event log (SEL) entries from the CIMC', specifying it shows hardware events, errors, and status changes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_faults or get_server_health, which might also report errors or status.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_faults or get_server_health, which might overlap in reporting hardware issues. The description implies usage for hardware events but lacks 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool lists 'all active faults' and allows filtering, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no faults exist. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational 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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and adding optional filtering in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and functionality, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating mandatory and optional aspects.

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 complexity of a fault-listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand how to interpret results or handle edge cases 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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'severity' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Optionally filter by severity level,' but it doesn't provide additional semantics like format details or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all active faults'), including what information is returned (severity, description, cause, timestamps). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on faults rather than settings, logs, inventory, or other system aspects.

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 through the phrase 'Optionally filter by severity level,' suggesting this tool is for viewing faults with optional filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_event_log' or 'get_server_health,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('List'), implying it is non-destructive, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or details the return format (e.g., structured data, pagination). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (a read operation with no parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what is listed but does not cover behavioral aspects like response format or error handling. For a simple tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in completeness.

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

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and it adds value by clarifying the scope of components included. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it avoids redundancy and focuses on semantic context.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all component firmware versions'), and it enumerates examples of components (CIMC, BIOS, storage controllers, network adapters). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bios_settings' or 'get_network_adapters', which might overlap in scope, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_inventory' or 'get_server_summary', which could potentially provide similar or related information. This lack of contextual usage advice limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies this is a read-only operation (inventory) but doesn't explicitly state behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns structured data. The description adds some context about what hardware components are included, but lacks details on output format or potential constraints.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's scope and usage without any wasted words. Every sentence adds clear 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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple inventory tool, but lacks details on what the return value looks like (e.g., format, structure) and doesn't mention any behavioral constraints. It's complete enough for basic use but has gaps in transparency.

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

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for this scenario is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Complete hardware inventory') and resources ('CPUs, DIMMs, PCI cards, network adapters, and storage controllers'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by answering 'What hardware is in this server?' which differentiates it from more specialized tools like get_network_adapters or get_storage_summary.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Answers "What hardware is in this server?"'), which clearly indicates it should be used for comprehensive hardware queries rather than the more specific sibling tools that focus on subsets like network adapters or storage.

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 implies a read-only operation ('List') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires admin permissions, returns real-time or cached data, has rate limits, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all network adapters') and specifies key attributes. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and the description's clear purpose, it is minimally complete. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or operational context, leaving gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, focusing instead on what data is returned. This meets the baseline of 4 for tools with zero parameters.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('network adapters/NICs') with specific attributes to be included (model, vendor, MAC addresses, port details). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on network adapters rather than BIOS, sensors, storage, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (e.g., 'get_network_configuration') that might not exist in this server.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationships with other tools like 'get_server_summary' or 'get_inventory' that might overlap. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'detailed power consumption statistics' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, data freshness, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this affects system state. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and enumerates key return metrics. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the high-level purpose from the specific metrics list.

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 complexity of power monitoring in a server context, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lists metrics but doesn't explain return format (e.g., units, timestamps, aggregation), data scope (e.g., per-component vs. system-wide), or how this differs from related sibling tools. For a tool in this domain, more contextual information is needed.

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

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

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool returns rather than inputs. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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 'detailed power consumption statistics' and lists specific metrics (input voltage, current, consumed power, power budget), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_thermal_stats' or 'get_server_health' that might also provide power-related data, preventing a perfect score.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_server_summary' or 'get_sensors' that might include power data, there's no indication of when this specialized tool is preferred or what prerequisites might exist for accessing power statistics.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it's real-time vs. cached. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand the core functionality immediately.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., data format, freshness) and does not compensate for the missing structured data, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns complex sensor data.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead, which aligns with the baseline for zero parameters.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'all sensor readings' with explicit examples (fans, power supplies, temperature data) and the source (CIMC-managed server). It distinguishes from siblings like get_thermal_stats (only temperature) or get_power_stats (only power).

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 prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to siblings like get_thermal_stats or get_server_health, leaving the agent to infer usage 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (composite health check) and its output purpose, but lacks details on performance aspects like response time, error handling, or data freshness, which are important for a health-check 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 highly concise and front-loaded, using two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's scope and purpose without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value by defining the composite check and its high-level answer.

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 complexity (composite check across multiple subsystems) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies what is checked but not the format or details of the health assessment, leaving gaps in understanding the full behavioral context.

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

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's function without redundant parameter info, aligning with the baseline expectation 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check', 'answers') and resources ('server status, active faults, DIMM/PSU/fan/storage status, and power consumption'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_faults or get_sensors by providing a composite health assessment rather than isolated metrics.

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 when to use this tool ('Answers "Is the server healthy?"'), providing clear context for its application. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as using get_faults for fault-specific queries instead.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature by using 'Get' and specifies it's for CIMC-managed servers, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for an agent.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by clarifying context. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete for a read-only summary tool. It covers purpose, scope, and data elements, but could improve by hinting at the return format or error cases to fully guide an agent.

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

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

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by clarifying the scope ('CIMC-managed server') and output semantics, though it doesn't fully detail the return structure since there's no output 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'overall server status', specifying the exact data returned (power state, model, serial number, CPU/memory counts, operability) and distinguishing it as a 'single composite view' from more granular sibling tools like get_power_stats or get_inventory.

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

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

The description implies usage by stating it provides a 'single composite view' for overall status, suggesting it's for high-level monitoring rather than detailed diagnostics. However, it doesn't explicitly name when to use alternatives like get_server_health or get_faults for specific needs.

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. While it indicates this is a read operation (implied by 'overview'), it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output will be in, whether there are rate limits, or how current the information is. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 and front-loaded with all necessary information in a single sentence. Every word earns its place by specifying exactly what components will be included in the overview (RAID controllers, virtual drives, physical disks) and what information will be provided (health and status). There's no wasted verbiage 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 that this is a read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It tells what the tool returns but not the format, structure, or completeness of the information. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has limited guidance on how to interpret the results. The description meets minimum requirements but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the description focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to provide an overview of the storage subsystem including RAID controllers, virtual drives, and physical disks with health and status information. It uses specific terminology ('RAID controllers', 'virtual drives', 'physical disks') and indicates what information will be returned. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_inventory' or 'get_server_summary' which might also provide storage-related information.

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. There are multiple sibling tools that might provide related information (get_inventory, get_server_summary, get_server_health), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific storage-focused tool is most appropriate or what distinguishes it from those other 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed thermal readings,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or historical data, or details the response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Detailed thermal readings') and efficiently lists the specific metrics retrieved. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and easy for an agent 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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clearly states what data is retrieved but lacks details on behavioral traits like authentication needs or return format. This meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in completeness.

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

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

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description efficiently focuses on output semantics without redundant parameter details.

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 what the tool does ('Detailed thermal readings') and specifies the exact resources it retrieves (CPU temperatures, memory temperatures, ambient, and fan speeds for all zones). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_sensors' or 'get_server_health' by focusing specifically on thermal metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sensors' or 'get_server_health', which might also include thermal data. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and description alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively warns about destructive actions ('off' and 'reset' are immediate and can cause data loss'), which is crucial behavioral information not evident from the schema alone. This goes beyond what the input schema provides about parameter constraints.

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 zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second provides critical warnings. Every word earns its place, and the warning is appropriately 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by including critical warnings. However, it could benefit from mentioning what happens after execution (e.g., server state changes, response format) or prerequisites like authentication requirements, though the 'confirm' parameter partially addresses safety.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'off' and 'reset' actions in the warning, but doesn't add significant semantic context beyond what's in the schema's enum descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Control') and resource ('server power'), with specific actions listed. It distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, which are primarily read-only 'get' operations or specific configuration tools, making this the only power management 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (for power control actions), and the WARNING implicitly suggests when not to use certain actions without proper caution. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or prerequisites beyond the confirmation parameter.

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 effectively discloses critical behavioral traits: it is a mutation tool (implied by 'Modify'), requires a server reboot to take effect (a significant side effect), and has a prerequisite (using get_bios_settings first). However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and a critical side effect, all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words. Each sentence adds essential value: the action, prerequisite, and behavioral consequence.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with server reboot requirement), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage guidelines, and a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on return values, error conditions, or security requirements, which would be beneficial for full completeness.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Modify a BIOS token value') and identifies the resource ('BIOS token'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_bios_settings (which discovers tokens) and other read-only tools. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that is not tautological.

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 when to use this tool ('Use get_bios_settings first to discover available tokens...') and provides a prerequisite action. It also distinguishes it from the sibling get_bios_settings by indicating this is for modification after discovery, offering clear contextual guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a mutation action ('Turn... on or off') and the physical purpose, but lacks details on permissions required, potential side effects (e.g., if it affects server operation), or error conditions. The description adds some behavioral context but is incomplete 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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary 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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or response format. It covers the purpose and usage context adequately but could benefit from more transparency for safe invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'state' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add specific parameter details beyond implying the LED control, but since there is only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is high. The description's context ('physically identify a server') adds slight semantic 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 specific action ('Turn... on or off') and the target resource ('server locator LED'), with the additional context that it's 'Used to physically identify a server in a rack.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are primarily for reading data (e.g., get_bios_settings, get_firmware_versions) or other actions like power_control.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Used to physically identify a server in a rack'), which implies it should be used for hardware identification purposes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, such as distinguishing from power_control for broader server control.

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 states the tool can 'enable, disable, or configure' SOL, implying it's a mutation tool, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, or what happens after configuration. For a configuration tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 perfectly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence directly states the tool's function, and the second provides helpful context about SOL. Every word earns its place with zero waste 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 this is a configuration tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what SOL is, but doesn't provide enough context about behavioral aspects, usage scenarios, or relationship to other tools. For a mutation tool without annotations, more completeness would be expected.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (enabled and baudRate) with their enums and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the 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 tool's purpose: 'Enable, disable, or configure Serial over LAN (SOL).' It specifies the verb (enable/disable/configure) and resource (SOL), and adds context about SOL's function ('provides remote console access to the server'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_bios_setting or power_control, which also configure server settings.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when SOL configuration is needed, or how it relates to sibling tools like set_bios_setting. The only contextual information is what SOL does, not when to configure it.

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