assess_response

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important side-effect trait ('Does not persist anything') and a design rule ('transfer and hint_dependency are excluded from the aggregate by design'). But it does not explain what 'validate' means in practice: what happens on invalid scores, whether errors are raised, or how the weighted overall_score is produced.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. The second and third sentences add genuinely important behavioral details without padding. Every sentence earns its place.

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 five parameters, a nested scores object, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It omits validation criteria, return shape, weight derivation, and the relationship to persisting alternatives like commit_assessment.

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 compensate. It adds only high-level meaning: dimension scores feed the aggregate, and transfer/hint_dependency are excluded. It does not clarify the shape of the scores object or the roles of session_id, raw_answer, assessor_type, or assessor_confidence.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Validate dimension scores and compute the weighted overall_score.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling persistence tools by stating 'Does not persist anything,' so an agent can tell this is a stateless scoring/validation step rather than a commit or generation action.

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?

The description provides useful context about non-persistence and the deliberate exclusion of transfer and hint_dependency, which implies this is a calculation-only tool. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over related tools like commit_assessment or generate_assessment, nor does it name alternatives.

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