scf_trigger_window_assessment

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses it is a write operation (editor+ role), async, and returns 422 for missing data. It does not cover rate limits or idempotency but is transparent about key behaviors.

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 efficient sentence plus a short error condition. Every word adds value: verb, target, role, async, error condition. No wasted text.

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 no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it does, async nature, role requirement, and error condition. It does not mention response format or follow-up retrieval, but overall adequately complete for a trigger tool.

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 already explaining parameters. The description adds some context (e.g., org_id from scf_list_organizations, evidence_id needs tracking/frequency) but does not significantly enhance beyond schema. Baseline 3.

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 it queues a windowed AI assessment scoring files as a portfolio, with role and async behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scf_trigger_evidence_assessment and scf_bulk_assess_evidence by emphasizing 'windowed' and 'portfolio'.

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 mentions preconditions (tracking/frequency must exist) and error condition, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like scf_bulk_assess_windows. Usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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