打分

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the returned score range [2, 10] and range, plus explicit error behavior for service unavailability or out-of-range responses. It does not discuss side effects, idempotency, or authentication, though these are less critical for a scoring operation.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with when to use, then when not to use, then return and error behavior. Every sentence adds actionable information, with no repetition of schema details.

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 tool is simple, the input schema is fully documented, and an output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return fields. It still completes the picture by covering the scale, alternatives, and error cases, leaving no major gap for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents state, criteria, and server fully. The description references criteria and state in the usage context but adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: scoring a state against criteria on a 2–10 scale, with examples such as risk, quality, and fit. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its siblings classify, route, and gate, so an agent can select it without opening the schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including the exact condition for choosing classify for categorization and route or gate for single-choice routing. It also excludes cases where the score semantics do not match the 2–10 dimension.

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