get_current_reward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the key behavioral trait: the operation is read-only with respect to episode progression ('Does not advance or reward an episode'). It does not mention other traits like caching or permissions, but for a zero-param diagnostic read, the non-mutation disclosure is substantive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's function and then the key non-side-effect constraint. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and non-advancement behavior. It could be more complete by explicitly relating to sibling read tools, but for a simple diagnostic read the coverage is adequate.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none, which 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('diagnostic score preview and components'), and the second sentence clarifies it does not advance or reward an episode, which helps distinguish it from execute_action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_canvas_state or get_action_schema, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Provides an implied context (diagnostic preview without side effects), but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like get_canvas_state or execute_action. It gives a when-not condition ('Does not advance or reward an episode') but no positive selection guidance.

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