Loading ToolBench
OARS platform backend foundation - a comprehensive action orchestration and risk scoring system with approval workflows, policy evaluation, evidence tracking, and audit capabilities
OARS exposes 19 tools with HTTP transport and basic schema definitions. Most tools have descriptions (15/19) and input schemas, but quality is inconsistent. Naming follows verb_noun convention well (submit_action, verify_receipt, list_receipts). However, descriptions are often generic (e.g., 'Verify the signature and chain validity of an action receipt' lacks context on when/why to call it). Parameter descriptions exist but lack constraints, no enums for 'decision' until tool 5, no format specs for ISO timestamps, no min/max for pagination limits. Output schemas are not documented anywhere in the source. Error handling is absent from tool definitions. Security-critical tools (restore_backup, record_approval_decision) lack confirmation patterns or dry-run support. Tool composition is reasonable (separate create/list/get), but chaining IDs are not guaranteed in responses (e.g., submit_action response structure unknown). Baseline: 549 production tools average 18-char names (OARS: 10-27 chars ✓), 194-char descriptions (OARS: 30-150 chars, mostly short), 100% of A+ tools have param descriptions (OARS: ~70%). Overall: solid naming, weak descriptions, missing output schemas, no error guidance.
Add a member to a tenant with a specific role
Create a backup of the platform state
Create a service account for a tenant
Create a new tenant
Retrieve details of a specific action
Check the health status of the OARS platform
List policy documents for a tenant
List action receipts with optional filtering
Output schemas not documented. No tool returns a documented response structure. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract chaining IDs (e.g., does submit_action return an actionId for use in get_action?).
Descriptions lack actionable context. Most are 30 - 60 chars and state WHAT without WHEN/WHY. E.g., 'Verify the signature and chain validity of an action receipt' does not explain when to call it or what happens on failure. Baseline: A+ tools average 194 chars.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 52 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
List members of a tenant
Publish a draft policy document
Record an approval or rejection decision for a pending approval
Restore the platform state from a backup
Run a disaster recovery drill to test backup and restore procedures
Scan and report control coverage for a compliance framework
Submit an action request for approval and execution
Create or update the approval workflow for a tenant
Create or update a control mapping for compliance framework
Create or update a policy document with rules
Verify the signature and chain validity of an action receipt
No parameter constraints (enums, min/max, format). 'limit' and 'offset' in list_receipts lack bounds (should be 1 - 100, 0 - max). 'decision' in record_approval_decision has enum but others like 'status' in list_policies do not. Baseline: 100% of A+ tools constrain inputs.
Destructive/irreversible tools lack confirmation or dry-run. restore_backup (IRREVERSIBLE risk) and record_approval_decision (WRITE risk) can cause data loss or approval errors without a confirmation step. No dry-run option visible.
No error handling guidance in tool definitions. No recovery hints, retryability classification, or actionable error messages. LLMs cannot self-correct on failures.