score_repo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool evaluates but doesn't disclose what 'score' means (e.g., numeric scale, pass/fail), whether it modifies anything (it likely doesn't, but that's not stated), what happens if the path is invalid, or what the output format is. For a read-only analysis tool, the lack of explicit non-destructive confirmation and output details is a gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Score a local repository') and lists the evaluation criteria. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains what is scored but not how the score is presented (e.g., numeric, categorical), what the return value looks like, or any edge cases (e.g., missing files, non-repository paths). For a tool that produces a score, the absence of output format details is a notable gap. The sibling tool 'list_hygiene_gaps' suggests a related workflow, but the description doesn't connect to it.

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 100%: the only parameter 'root' is described as 'Absolute path to the repository root'. The description adds the context that the repository is 'local' and what will be scored, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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's function: scoring a local repository for specific hygiene criteria (README, license, tests, TypeScript, CI). It uses a specific verb ('score') and resource ('local repository'), and lists the dimensions evaluated. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'list_hygiene_gaps', but the verb 'score' implies a rating/assessment rather than listing gaps, which is a reasonable implicit distinction.

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 implies the tool is used when you want a hygiene score for a repository, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over 'list_hygiene_gaps'. The sibling tool name suggests an alternative for listing gaps, but the description doesn't mention it or provide selection criteria. The context is clear enough for a basic use case, but no explicit guidance is given.

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