score_tool_call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, and the description adds real value: it explains what the returned verdicts (allow | ask | block) mean operationally and states the trust policy that only `user`-sourced context counts as instructions. The enumerated return fields partly duplicate the output schema, and the caller obligations on receiving a block are not spelled out.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining text is dense rather than padded. The return-value list is somewhat run-on and partly redundant with the output schema, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, the return enumeration is not strictly needed, yet the description omits how this gate relates to gate_info and does not state whether scoring is mandatory before risky calls. Adequate for the core behavior but leaves integration-level gaps.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain the complex `context` parameter's shape and trust semantics, but leaves `tool`, `args`, and `server_name` implicit — an agent must infer that `args` are the proposed call's arguments.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Score a PROPOSED tool call before running it", making the pre-execution safety-gate purpose unambiguous. It does not name or differentiate itself from the lone sibling, gate_info, so it falls short of a 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?

"before running it" clearly anchors when the tool should be invoked — prior to executing a proposed call. No exclusions or alternatives (e.g., gate_info) are mentioned, so the guidance is clear but incomplete.

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