score_all_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that setting multiDimensional=true returns 11 dimensions and that libraryRoot is used for evidence detection in a11y dims. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or if there are any side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical detail about the key parameter. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

While the description covers the tool's function and key parameter behavior, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., structure of health scores, default vs. multi-dimensional output). Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, additional context would help an agent fully understand the output.

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%, but the description adds value beyond the schema: for multiDimensional, it explains 'full 11-dimension enterprise scoring'; for libraryRoot, it clarifies it is 'threaded into helix-AAA evidence detection for the 8 split a11y dims.' This provides useful context.

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 'Returns health scores for all components in the library,' specifying the verb (returns), resource (health scores), and scope (all components). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'score_component' which targets a single component.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'score_component' or other analysis tools. The description only hints at parameter behavior but does not provide context for selection.

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