get_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and computed from events.jsonl on each call, which signals no side effects and fresh computation. This is valuable transparency, though it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error conditions; these are less critical for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every phrase adds information: the score's nature, formula disclosure, read-only behavior, and data source. This is an appropriately sized description for a simple tool.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema available, the description provides the essential invocation context: what it returns, that it is read-only, and that it reads from events.jsonl. It lacks a bit of context about what 'failure-prevention' means and when it should be used, but the low complexity and presence of an output schema keep it reasonably complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. The statement about being computed from events.jsonl provides useful context about the score's derivation, which is sufficient.

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 identifies a specific resource: a failure-prevention score, and notes that its formula is disclosed. It is distinguishable from sibling tools by the 'score' concept, though it does not explicitly explain what the score measures. Overall, the purpose is clear and specific enough for an agent.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_summary, get_issue, or get_plan. It only states that the score is computed from events.jsonl, which implies a dependency on event data but does not specify conditions or alternatives. An agent would have to infer appropriate usage.

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