SlopScore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement (bearer token), content limits (markdown, 4000 chars, 2 links), and the moderation behavior ('flagged comments are held for a moderator'). It omits return/error behavior and whether the write is reversible, keeping it from a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded, followed by content limits, auth, and moderation behavior. No filler clauses; every fragment conveys a distinct constraint.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers auth, content constraints, and moderation queuing but omits the threading parameter, response shape, and failure modes. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: the format/length/link constraints clearly bound the `body` parameter and 'listed repo' bounds owner/repo. However, the `parent_id` parameter (reply threading) is never mentioned anywhere, leaving a required-knowledge gap.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb (Comment) and resource (a listed repo), and adds concrete scope constraints: markdown format, ≤4000 chars, ≤2 links. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like report or vote, so it stops short of 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 phrase 'on a listed repo' implies a precondition (the repo must already be listed) and 'Needs a bearer token' signals an auth prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as report or vote.

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 does disclose the shape of the returned content (moderation queue, free/paid mode, AI budget, scans left), which is real value with no output schema present, but it says nothing about read-only safety, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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

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

A single compact sentence with zero filler, front-loading the primary resource (moderation queue) and then the secondary capacity data. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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

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

For a zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what comes back but omits access requirements and any indication of when this call is appropriate. It is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about context of use.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. The description correctly does not waste words describing nonexistent 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 names the specific resource it returns: the public moderation queue plus site capacity metrics (free/paid mode, AI budget, scans left). That is clearly distinguishable from every sibling (comment, get_repo, list_buckets, report, vote, whoami). It stops short of a verb-led statement of what the tool does, but the resource is 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (does it need auth? is it admin-only?), and no stated exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and returned-content list.

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 and no output schema, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned content buckets (disclosures, tags, scan report, comments), which is mildly informative, but says nothing about read-only semantics, authentication/scope requirements, or error behavior for an obviously read-oriented 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 sentence fragment with no verb, front-loaded content missing, and no structure an agent can parse into purpose plus usage. Shortness here reflects under-specification rather than economical writing.

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

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description would need to do substantial work, but it provides only a terse field list. An agent cannot tell what the fields mean, how they are formatted, or what permissions the call requires.

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% for two required parameters (owner, repo), and the description never mentions either parameter or their format. Nothing compensates for the schema gap, so an agent gets no added meaning beyond the bare property names.

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 name get_repo plus 'One listing' signals a single-repository fetch, and the enumerated fields (disclosures, tags, scan report, comments) hint at what comes back. But the fragment never states a verb or resource explicitly, so the purpose is vague rather than clearly articulated, and it only weakly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_repos and search_repos.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_repos or search_repos. 'One listing' faintly implies single-item retrieval versus list operations, but that contrast is left entirely to inference.

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 behavioral burden and falls short: it does not state that this is a read-only listing, whether results are paginated, whether auth is required, or what the ordering is. Mentioning that counts accompany each entry is the only behavioral detail provided.

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?

It is a single fragment with zero waste and is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise. Brevity here reflects a lack of content, not disciplined editing.

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

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

For a zero-param list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what a 'slopbucket' is and that this is a safe read. Neither is addressed, leaving an agent unable to confidently interpret the results or distinguish this from sibling list tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to describe. The description neither helps nor harms here.

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 phrase 'Curated slopbuckets with counts' essentially restates the tool name (list_buckets) and swaps in an undefined domain term. 'Slopbuckets' is never defined, and the description does not distinguish this from siblings like list_repos or get_queue. It adds only a faint hint that counts are returned.

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 indication of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related listing needs. The agent is left to infer everything from the 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only safety, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination termination. The mention of a 'page' parameter weakly implies paging, but no behavior is actually described.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loads something, but the lead phrase 'The SlopScore feed' is uninformative and the parameter list is telegraphic fragments rather than an explanatory sentence. Terse to the point of under-specification.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: the 'bucket' parameter is unexplained, defaults are unspecified, and return content/pagination behavior is absent. Not enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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 only 25% (only 'bucket' is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It usefully supplies the allowed values for sort (hot|new|top) and t (day|week|month|year|all), which the schema lacks as enums, but it ignores 'bucket' entirely and gives no meaning for 'page'.

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 labels the tool as 'The SlopScore feed' and lists a few parameters, implying that it returns a paginated feed of repos, but it never states a verb or resource explicitly ('list repos'). It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like search_repos or list_buckets, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer this feed over search_repos, get_repo, or list_buckets, and no mention of prerequisites or defaults. The agent gets no routing help at all.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a rate limit and a precondition which is useful, but says nothing about what the scan does, what triggers it, or the result format.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and includes the constraint; no wasted words.

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

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but mentions the precondition and rate limit. It omits parameter details and scan behavior, leaving gaps an agent may need to resolve.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so parameters 'owner' and 'repo' are undocumented. The description implies a 'repo' applies but adds no format, expected values or constraints for either parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (scan) and resource (GitHub repo), with a precondition that the repo has a slopscore.md. Differentiates from other repo tools like get_repo/list_repos by its 'scan' nature, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?

Names a clear precondition ('has a slopscore.md') and a rate limit. However, it does not mention which tools are alternatives for repos without slopscore.md (e.g., get_repo), so it falls short of the top score.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the auth requirement (bearer token) and the silent nature (quietly), which is valuable, but does not explain effects like notification to owners, reversibility, or response behavior.

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

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

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a reason list and auth note. Front-loaded with the core action and key constraint. Every element earns its place.

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

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

For a 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the reason enum and auth needs, but omits owner/repo purpose, note usage, and the effect of reporting. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates allowed values for reason, which is the most critical param, but leaves owner, repo, and note undocumented. Partial compensation justifies a 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: report a listing. The '(quietly)' qualifier conveys the operation is non-public/silent, which is useful. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like vote or comment, but it's clearly a distinct action.

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

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

No guidance on when to use report vs alternatives like vote or comment. It does implicitly clarify the reason categories, which hints at misuse scenarios, but there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.

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 carry the full burden. It mentions operator syntax but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination behavior, result format, or authentication needs. Behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 function and lists operator keys compactly. It avoids filler, though its extreme brevity contributes to other gaps.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks page semantics, result behavior, and any usage context, leaving critical operational details unspecified.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'q' parameter by listing supported operators (category:, lang:, etc.) and the exclusion prefix, but it gives no usage syntax and completely omits the 'page' parameter.

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 states 'Full-text search with operators,' which gives a verb and some context, but it never states the resource being searched (repos). An agent must infer from the name that it searches repositories, and there is no explicit differentiation from siblings like list_repos or get_repo.

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 given on when to use this tool versus list_repos, get_repo, or other siblings. It only describes query syntax, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate 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 behavioral burden. It discloses the auth requirement and vote values, but does not explain mutation effects, reversibility, rate limits, visibility, or what happens if the repo is not listed.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. It states purpose, value semantics, and auth requirement in a compact form.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is too sparse. It omits important context such as permissions beyond the bearer token, side effects, error behavior, and full parameter meaning.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that value=1, -1, and 0 means clear, and ties the operation to a listed repo, but it does not explain the owner or repo parameters beyond their names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: voting on a listed repo. It is clear enough to distinguish from read/list siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives such as comment or report.

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 it by saying 'Vote on a listed repo' and gives the prerequisite of a bearer token, plus the value semantics for clearing a vote. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over comment, report, or other sibling actions.

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, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: the result is conditional ("if any"), so an empty/absent result is possible when the token is missing or invalid. It does not say what the identity payload contains, whether the call requires a valid token, or what error behavior looks like.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ("if any") is placed where it is read. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually but not its shape — it does not indicate which identity attributes come back, nor the failure mode when no token is present. Adequate but with clear gaps for an auth-probing tool.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the token is supplied out-of-band rather than as an argument.

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 states a specific resource (the GitHub identity) and its binding condition (the bearer token), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_repo or list_repos. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, so it falls just short of the top 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for verifying which account a token belongs to, commonly as an auth check. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the siblings.

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