mimir_score

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that high scores resist decay and rank higher, but lacks details on idempotency, reversibility, or required permissions. The behavioral context is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and followed by consequences. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

For a simple scoring tool, the description covers purpose, effect, and usage. It does not explain the output format, but an output schema exists. It could mention prerequisites or error cases, but overall it is fairly complete.

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%. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides for the three parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters clearly.

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 the verb 'Assign', the resource 'entity', and the score range 0.0-1.0. It explains the effect on decay and recall ranking, and lists usage scenarios (mark as accurate, verified, deprecated). This distinguishes it well from the many sibling tools.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (to assign quality scores and mark entities) and hints at the consequences. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, which would further improve clarity.

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