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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Create' without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a mutating 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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

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

The tool is simple with full schema coverage, making the description minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral details, output/error expectations, and explicit usage guidance, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, but the schema already documents both parameters adequately.

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 the resource ('a new app on Scout Live'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like app_list (listing) and deploy (deployment).

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 its verb and resource, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Sibling names help infer context, but the description itself lacks direct usage 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 available, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only operation via 'list' and scopes to the authenticated user, but lacks details on pagination, ordering, rate limits, or error behavior. This is a minimal but acceptable disclosure 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the action, resource, and scope.

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 is largely complete. It could mention what an 'app' contains or the return format, but for a simple list tool, the provided description is sufficient.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are required given the empty 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 uses the specific verb 'list', names the resource 'apps', and scopes it to 'the authenticated user'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like app_create, deploy, logs, and port_get/port_set.

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 ('authenticated user') and implies when to use the tool (when listing apps). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tools perform distinctly different actions, making the usage context clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Deploy a new version' implies a mutation (overwriting or creating a version), but it does not state side effects, whether it is idempotent, or if it triggers a build. This is minimal for a mutating 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 redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource.

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's simplicity is not enough to compensate for missing behavioral context. In the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description does not explain return values, success/failure behavior, or whether deployment is synchronous. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described (slug as app identifier, files as path->content mapping). The description adds little beyond the schema, but the 'new version' phrase hints at the files' role without adding specific format details. Baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb (deploy) and resource (app), clearly indicating a deployment action. It is distinct from sibling tools like app_create (which creates an app) or logs (which retrieves logs), but does not explicitly call out the differences.

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, nor are prerequisites or deployment scenarios mentioned. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names.

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 only says 'Get,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose output format, ordering, pagination, or any potential side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that interacts with app infrastructure.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could incorporate a bit more behavioral context without becoming verbose.

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

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

Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core purpose but leaves out behavioral details such as what the logs look like or any limitations. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's basic function, but it does not fully cover all context an agent might need (e.g., ordering, format).

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 both parameters (slug and lines) described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'recent logs,' but the schema already documents the parameters adequately, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('recent logs for an app'). Among sibling tools like app_list, deploy, and port_get, logs is uniquely identified as the log retrieval tool, so it distinguishes itself from all 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?

The description implies usage: call this tool when you need an app's recent logs. It provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool offers log retrieval, so the intended use is clear. No prerequisites or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. While 'Get' implies a non-mutating operation, the description does not mention permissions, error behavior, response format, or any side effects, offering minimal 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 extremely concise, using a short, front-loaded phrase with no redundant language. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing important context.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not indicate what the returned configuration looks like, what errors may occur, or any special behaviors, making it incomplete for an agent to rely on.

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

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

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (slug and port). The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters affect the configuration retrieval, so the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('Get') and resource ('port adapter configuration'), clearly indicating a read operation. It distinguishes from the sibling port_set by implying a getter/setter pair, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 vs alternatives such as port_set. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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 only states 'Set port adapter mapping' without revealing side effects, whether existing mappings are overwritten, reversibility, required permissions, or the response format. 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, short sentence with zero fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and a nested config object. It lacks structural elements like context or examples, so it barely earns a passing score.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or the operational effect of setting a mapping. The schema provides parameter listings but not the behavioral or contextual glue needed for correct 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with brief descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles 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 uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Set port adapter mapping' clearly indicates a write operation targeting port-adapter associations. It distinguishes from sibling 'port_get' by the contrasting 'set' vs 'get' action, and the resource 'port adapter mapping' is more specific than just 'port'. However, it lacks detail on what a 'port adapter mapping' is or what setting it accomplishes, leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The sibling port_get implies a read counterpart, but the description does not mention that relationship or any exclusions. The context is only implied by the tool name and schema, not explained.

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