score_readme

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the scoring categories, output range, and local-file restriction, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens on missing/unreadable files, or the exact return format.

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 entire description is one focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose, lists the evaluation dimensions, and states the key constraint. Every clause adds information; there is no filler.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description provides enough context: what is scored, the score range, and the local-file restriction. Although there is no output schema, the stated 0–100 range addresses the primary return payload, and no complex side effects are implied.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that the file must be a local markdown file and by tying 'relative link validity' to the skipLinkCheck parameter. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Score') with a clear resource (README) and enumerates the evaluation dimensions: install/usage/license/badges/structure and relative link validity. The explicit output range (0–100) and the restriction to a local markdown file distinguish it from sibling tools like check_readme_links and suggest_improvements.

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 clearly states this tool scores a local README markdown file only, which establishes context for filePath. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer scoring over check_readme_links or suggest_improvements, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than spelled out.

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