Audit an OrchestrUI plan

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

The description is read-only and idempotent per annotations, and it does not contradict them. It implies a non-destructive analysis action ('score a proposed library plan') without adding extra behavioral context such as side effects, error conditions, or dependencies. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient but does not disclose anything beyond them.

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, information-dense sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and object, and every word contributes to the meaning. This is a model of conciseness.

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 tool with six parameters, including a nested structure (verifications) and multiple enums, the description is far too sparse. It does not clarify the expected format of the 'proposed library plan,' what constitutes a 'score,' or how the nine categories relate to the inputs. While annotations confirm safety, the description lacks crucial operational detail for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not mention any of the six parameters (verifications, existing_stack, etc.). The sentence offers no clues about what 'verifications' or 'selected_libraries' mean, leaving the agent without useful semantic grounding for the 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 clearly uses an active verb ('score') targeting a specific resource ('proposed library plan') and specifies the criteria ('nine OrchestrUI quality and licensing categories'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_libraries or get_install_instructions, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast. The purpose is clear and non-tautological.

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. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like recommend_stack or search_components. Users are left to infer the tool's role in their workflow without explicit direction.

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