score_soul_file

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 returns a score but doesn't describe what happens if the file is missing, invalid, or inaccessible; whether it has side effects; or what the scoring algorithm entails beyond 'optional fields'. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids 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 moderate complexity (scoring based on optional fields), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling or scoring details. For a tool with no structured output or annotations, more context would be beneficial to ensure reliable 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'path' documented as 'Path to the .soul.md file to score.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as file format expectations or path resolution rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation 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 tool's purpose: 'Return a completeness score (0-100) for a SOUL.md file based on how many optional fields are filled.' It specifies the verb ('return'), resource ('SOUL.md file'), and scoring mechanism ('completeness score based on optional fields'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'validate_soul_file', which might perform similar validation functions.

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 sibling tools like 'generate_soul_template' or 'validate_soul_file', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where scoring is appropriate versus other operations. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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