zendesk_qa_workspace_scorecards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions token requirement but not whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid workspace ID, or any rate limits. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand side effects or safety.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the authentication requirement is added as a separate sentence. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema). The description covers the basic purpose and auth. However, it does not describe the return format or what 'scorecards' contain, which would be helpful since no output schema exists. Still, it meets minimum viability.

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 description coverage is 100% (the only parameter, workspaceId, has a description). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema for parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (scorecards) with a clear scope (specific Zendesk QA workspace). It differentiates from sibling tools like zendesk_qa_workspace_csat or zendesk_qa_workspace_reviews, which fetch different resources for the same workspace.

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 only mentions an authentication requirement (ZENDESK_QA_API_TOKEN) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like zendesk_qa_get_reviews or zendesk_qa_get_csat. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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