Prompt-efficiency score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (score, grade, actionable tips) but does not mention potential side effects, mutability, permissions, or error behavior. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 two short sentences with no redundant information. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's function, input, and output. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior adequately: it returns a score, grade, and tips. However, it lacks context on how the grade is interpreted or any scenario guidance relative to siblings, which would enhance completeness.

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% and the schema already defines the 'turns' parameter with properties. The description merely restates that the tool takes conversation turns, adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool 'scores' the efficiency of conversation setup, specifying the input (conversation turns) and output (score, grade, tips). It is specific enough to differentiate from siblings like 'analyze_efficiency', though that sibling might have a similar purpose without further details.

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 includes the instruction 'Pass the conversation turns', which provides basic usage guidance. However, it does not elaborate on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'analyze_efficiency' instead) or mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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