score_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that setting multiDimensional=true changes the output to 11-dimension enterprise scoring with tier gates, and mentions libraryRoot enables helix-AAA evidence collection. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any performance implications.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first states the main purpose, and the second highlights the key parameter option. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description gives a high-level overview but does not detail the return format (e.g., score range, structure of issues). Adequate for basic understanding but lacking completeness for an agent to fully anticipate the response.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only restating the purpose of multiDimensional. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides full semantics.

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 returns the latest health score for a single web component, specifying it includes grade, dimension scores, and issues. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'score_all_components' by explicitly noting it is for a single component, and explains the multi-dimensional option.

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 like get_health_summary or get_health_trend. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide any comparative context with siblings.

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