list_scores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only lists parameters but does not describe pagination behavior, maximum limit (though implied in param description), sorting, or side effects. The description lacks sufficient transparency about tool behavior.

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 a clear purpose line followed by parameter explanations. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the Arg-style formatting could be slightly more compact for MCP.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of score objects, support for pagination metadata). It omits this entirely, making it incomplete for a list endpoint.

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 schema has no descriptions, so the parameter explanations in the description add significant value: they clarify that limit has a max of 100, page is 1-based, and each filter is by a specific field. This goes beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 'List scores with optional filters.' clearly states the verb and resource, and there are no sibling tools named similarly, so differentiation is not needed. However, it could specify that 'scores' refers to evaluation scores, but it is adequate.

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 implies usage for listing scores with filters, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_score, list_traces). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given.

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