listScores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'List scores with filtering,' omitting details like pagination behavior, result ordering, what happens with no results, or potential performance implications of combining multiple filters.

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 very short and front-loaded, stating the core action in the first sentence. However, it could include more detail without becoming verbose, so it's slightly below a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the response format or behavior (e.g., pagination, filtering logic). It does not. Additionally, for 13 parameters, it fails to clarify how filters combine (AND/OR) or whether all are optional.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter—it only generalizes that filtering is supported.

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 lists scores with filtering, and explicitly mentions it supports both trace and observation scores. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like createScore, getScore, listScoreConfigs, etc.

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 implies usage for listing and filtering scores but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getScore for a single score or listObservations. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice.

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