Lifecycle Scores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, clearly indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns scores 'generated from retrieval and outcome feedback,' which provides some behavioral insight beyond the annotations, but does not elaborate on response format or potential side effects (e.g., if results are cached or real-time).

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Return') and directly states the resource and source. Every word adds value.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the return object ('lifecycle scores') and their derivation ('from retrieval and outcome feedback'). It does not explain what lifecycle scores represent or how they might be used, but the output schema likely covers the structure. Given the low complexity, the description is largely complete.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per the guidelines, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4, as the description cannot add parameter-level detail. The description does not need to compensate.

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 returns 'generated lifecycle scores from retrieval and outcome feedback,' specifying the verb ('Return') and the resource ('lifecycle scores'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on other memory operations (e.g., acceptance, capture, conflict) by its unique subject matter, though 'lifecycle scores' could be more precisely defined.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. It does not state prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to choose alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context solely from the tool name and description.

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