score_and_enhance

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

The description discloses that the tool returns three items: original score, enhanced prompt, and new score, allowing the user to see improvement. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention any side effects, but for a non-destructive operation this is acceptable. A 5 would require mention of any irreversible changes.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the combination benefit and return values. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 that combines two operations, the description covers its purpose, return values, and why to use it. It does not mention limitations or prerequisites, but given the presence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete. A 5 would require additional context like rate limits or error conditions.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing example values for the generator parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Score a prompt AND get an AI-enhanced version in one call', specifying the verb (score, enhance) and resource (prompt). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings score_prompt and enhance_prompt by combining both operations.

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 says 'Combines score_prompt + enhance_prompt into a single round-trip', which clearly indicates when to use it (to get both operations in one call). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or when to prefer separate tools, so it's not a 5.

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