get_efficiency_scorecard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as returning a score and tracking over time, implying a read-only operation. No destructive or side-effect behaviors are mentioned, which is appropriate.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, followed by scope details and examples. It is slightly lengthy but each part adds value; could be slightly more concise.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (0-100 score, letter grade, 5 dimensions, tracking over time). It covers all necessary aspects for selection and invocation.

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 parameter schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter's meaning through scope options and examples (e.g., 'team=platform', 'environment=prod', 'provider=aws', with default 'overall').

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 provides a 'FinOps efficiency scorecard' with a 0–100 score and letter grade across 5 specific dimensions, and distinguishes itself by mentioning being tracked over time. It relates to sibling tools like get_team_scorecards but is distinct.

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 explains scope options such as 'overall', team, environment, and provider filters, and provides example prompts. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions, but the context is clear enough.

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