parse_review_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description indicates the tool extracts a score based on a specific pattern, but it does not disclose what happens if the pattern is not found (e.g., returns null, throws error, or returns empty string). It also does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether the review text is modified or if the tool requires specific permissions). The description is adequate but leaves ambiguity about failure 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 brief and to the point, using a single sentence to convey the core functionality. It front-loads the key information about what the tool does and the expected input format. While it is concise, it could be improved by adding a brief note on failure behavior without significantly increasing length.

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 the tool has only one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for its simplicity. However, it lacks details about return format (e.g., whether it returns a number or string) and error handling. Since there is no output schema, a brief mention of what the output looks like would enhance completeness. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100% coverage with one parameter 'reviewText', and the description adds context by specifying that the text should contain '总分:XX分' format. However, it does not elaborate on the syntax of the expected format beyond the example, such as whether the score must be an integer or can be decimal, or if there are constraints on the value range. Given the schema already describes the parameter well, the description adds marginal value but not enough to rise above baseline 3.

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's purpose: '从审查文本中解析评分（提取 '总分:XX分' 格式）', which translates to 'parse review scores from review text (extract format '总分:XX分')'. It specifies the exact verb (parse), the resource (review text), and the specific format to extract, distinguishing it from sibling tools like review_code, review_diff, and review_file, which may involve different operations.

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?

While the description does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, it implies usage when a review text contains a score in the specified format. The context signals and sibling tool names suggest this is a specialized parsing tool, so an agent would infer to use it only when needing to extract a score, not for other review-related tasks. However, it lacks explicit guidance on what to do if the format is absent.

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