security_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it computes and optionally records history, but does not mention if it is read-only, whether recording history modifies state, or any auth requirements. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise sentence. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but lacks front-loading of key details. No extraneous words.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format (score range/grade scale), prerequisites for the issues array, or what 'record history' entails. The agent would need additional documentation to use it correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter. 'issues list' is vague; no details on expected object structure. 'record' and 'tenant_id' are not mentioned. The description adds no value beyond the schema for parameter semantics.

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 tool computes a security score from an issues list and optionally records history. The verb 'compute' and resource 'security score/grade' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like evaluate_policy or audit_infra_security, which also deal with security metrics.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when an issues list is available, but lacks explicit context or exclusions. An agent would not know if this is preferred over scan_repository or evaluate_policy for scoring.

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