art.pipeline.score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool computes a score and lists the criteria, but it does not describe side effects, output shape, read-only nature, error conditions, or whether the quality score is a numeric grade or structured result. Important behavior remains opaque.

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 short sentences with no filler. It states the operation and immediately lists actionable scoring criteria. Every sentence earns its place, and the most essential information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema and no description of the return format, which is a notable gap for a scoring tool. The description also does not mention how reference_id changes behavior, whether the tool is safe to run, or how it fits into a pipeline flow relative to other art.* tools. It is minimally sufficient but leaves several operational questions unanswered.

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 100%, so the input schema adequately documents asset_path and reference_id. The description adds context by naming the scoring dimensions, but does not elaborate on how the parameters affect scoring or how reference_id influences the result beyond the schema's 'comparison' wording.

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 and resource: 'compute visual quality score for a pixel art asset.' It also lists concrete scoring dimensions (silhouette, palette, composition, pixel cleanliness, style match), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like art.critic.evaluate or art.qa.asset, but the core purpose 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as art.pipeline.analyze, art.critic.evaluate, or art.qa.asset. There is no indication of when scoring is appropriate, what it is not for, or how it differs from other quality-related tools in the sibling set.

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