calculate_cvi

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that admin access is needed and specifies the tool's output (indices and interpretations). It does not mention side effects, but the operation appears read-only, and the requirement is well-stated.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose, output summary, and requirement. Every sentence adds essential information without 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?

Given that an output schema is present, the description appropriately covers purpose, return values, and authorization requirements. For a tool with one parameter and no annotations, this is complete and informative.

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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema for the single parameter (instrument_id). Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's description ('ID numerik instrumen yang akan dihitung') without further elaboration.

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 calculates the Content Validity Index (CVI) of an instrument, including specific return values (I-CVI per item, S-CVI/Ave, S-CVI/UA) and interpretations. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_instrument or list_* tools.

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 explicitly notes that admin access is required ('Memerlukan akses admin di backend'), providing a clear usage condition. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context of calculating CVI versus CRUD operations is implicit.

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