Score a request before starting work

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Writes nothing,' which is a key behavioral trait (non-destructive), and mentions the output (proceed or block verdict). This adds value beyond the schema, though it does not detail other side effects like logging or rate limits, which is acceptable for a read-only evaluation tool.

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 that front-loads the core action and output, then appends the non-mutation note. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the purpose, non-mutating behavior, and output type. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating when to use this versus write_record, but the sibling name and 'Writes nothing' make the distinction clear enough.

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 does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions 'request' but the schema already describes it as 'The request as received, verbatim.' No extra context is given for cwd or target.

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 states a specific verb (scores) and resource (request against repository profile), and clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool by noting 'Writes nothing.' This makes the tool's function unambiguous and differentiates it from write_record.

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 title 'Score a request before starting work' gives clear temporal context, and the description's 'Writes nothing' implies it is for evaluation rather than mutation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name write_record as the alternative, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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