prd_score

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 the scoring criteria and implies a non-destructive read operation, but does not explicitly confirm idempotence, authorization needs, or side effects.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loaded. It conveys the key action and criteria without unnecessary words, though it could be more terse.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify the return format (e.g., integer score vs. breakdown). The tool has two parameters with ambiguous usage, and no guidance on expected input. Given the complexity of scoring and multiple sibling tools, more detail 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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional context about how prd_id and content relate (e.g., exclusive or, precedence). It merely restates the scoring criteria without clarifying parameter usage.

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 ('Score'), the resource ('PRD'), and the output ('completeness from 0-100'). It also lists the scoring criteria (section coverage, content quality, AINative integration depth), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like prd_validate or prd_check_api_refs.

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 such as prd_validate or prd_check_api_refs. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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