badge_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only states the action (get badge) without disclosing behavioral traits like being read-only, error handling, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks transparency into side effects or constraints.

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?

Single sentence, clear and front-loaded. Every word is necessary. No redundancy.

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 simple tool (one param, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It mentions 'badge status and criteria' but does not describe the response format or what the criteria entail. Since there is no output schema, more detail on return values would be beneficial.

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% (one parameter 'id' described as 'Best Practices project ID number'). The description adds 'project ID' but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 because coverage is high, but no extra value is added.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get OpenSSF Best Practices badge status and criteria for a project by ID.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'badge_by_repo' and 'badge_search' by specifying 'by ID'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced for comparison.

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