inforcer_alignment_scores

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' reinforces the same information. It adds the cross-tenant scope, but provides no additional behavioral details such as output shape, pagination, or rate limits, so the value beyond annotations is modest.

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 consists of two short sentences, front-loading the primary action and scope, followed by a useful safety qualifier. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary repetition or padding.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the scope, and the safety profile. The empty schema and annotations cover the remaining invocation requirements, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

This tool has no parameters, and the input schema fully reflects this with an empty properties object. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics, so the no-parameter baseline applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('baseline alignment scores') with a clear scope ('across tenants'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like inforcer_baselines_list or inforcer_alignment_details, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'across tenants' implies this tool is for retrieving cross-tenant baseline alignment scores, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as inforcer_baselines_list or inforcer_alignment_details, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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