Re-score Board

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that it rescore from scratch, includes already scored jobs, returns job ids+descriptions, and requires subsequent actions. It also explains the include_saved parameter behavior transparently.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections) but each sentence adds necessary value.

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 composite nature (involves a whole-board rescore, returns data, and requires follow-up calls), the description covers the action, trigger conditions, return format, and required subsequent steps (evaluate_jobs and show_board). No output schema needed because return is clearly described.

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% for the single parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the effect of setting include_saved=true to also re-score the saved/applied tracker, which goes slightly beyond the schema comment.

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 action 're-score the whole board from scratch' and specifies the resource 'board'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like evaluate_jobs by noting it rescore every job including already scored ones, and sets context for when to use it.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'when the user asks to rescore/evaluate the board or after the scoring approach changed.' It also provides direct guidance: 'call evaluate_jobs with FRESH... then call show_board,' and warns not to skip already scored jobs.

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