score_project_fit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact weighted formula and says it provides a dimension breakdown and explanation, which is useful behavioral transparency. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but as a scoring function it is likely safe; still, more detail about the 'enrich' parameter's effect would improve it.

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 two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by the formula. It is front-loaded and each sentence provides essential information with no filler.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return structure, but it still lacks usage context and parameter meaning. The formula and breakdown are well covered, yet the tool's role among sibling tools and the effect of the 'enrich' flag remain undefined, making it adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke it.

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 does not explain project_id, hackathon_id, or enrich beyond their names. The formula mentions dimensions like theme and stack, but these are not parameters and do not clarify the input parameters' semantics or expected formats.

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 scores project fit for a hackathon with a dimension breakdown and explanation. It names a specific verb ('score') and resource ('project fit vs hackathon'), which distinguishes it from general analysis tools like analyze_project, though it does not explicitly reference sibling tools to differentiate them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rank_best_targets or analyze_project. The description states what it does but omits context like prerequisites, exclusions, or when this scoring is preferred.

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