Graph readiness score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable interpretive framing (a signal, not proof) and discloses the return contents, but says nothing about prerequisites such as whether the graph must first be built via orangepro_update_graph.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core output contents are front-loaded before the caveat. Every clause carries information.

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 usefully enumerates the return values and the interpretive caveat. Slight gap: it doesn't mention any preconditions (e.g., needing an analyzed/built graph) or the local-only scope implications for an agent deciding timing.

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?

Single workspace parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the default-to-current-directory behavior. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb/resource ('Return the local graph readiness score') and enumerates exactly what comes back: 0-100 score, band, per-dimension breakdown, and missing evidence. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like orangepro_prove or orangepro_status.

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?

'Readiness signal, not a proof of test lift' implicitly steers the agent away from using this as a proof tool (i.e., toward orangepro_prove), giving real selection context. It doesn't explicitly say when in a workflow to call it or name the alternative tool, so it falls short of the top score.

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