score_variations

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the ranked output format but omits details on scoring criteria, evaluator model, determinism, or rate limits. Acceptable but could be more transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences: action, output, usage advice. No fluff or redundancy. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the output schema existence and simple input requirements (2 parameters, no enums), the description covers core behavior, output, and usage. Missing edge cases or error handling, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the recommendation of 2–5 variations (schema says 2–10) and the 'same generator' constraint, providing marginal extra context. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool scores multiple prompt variations for the same generator in one call, returning a ranked list. This distinguishes it from siblings like score_prompt (single prompt) and score_and_enhance (scoring plus enhancement).

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?

Explicitly advises use after writing 2–5 candidate prompts to objectively pick the winner, implying it is not for single prompts or cross-generator comparisons. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and context relative to sibling tools.

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