pbi_score_rubric

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the aggregation function and return type but lacks explicit statements about whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The implied behavior is safe (scoring), but not explicitly 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: two sentences for purpose and a structured bullet-like list for criteria details. It front-loads the main action and uses efficient formatting, with no extraneous information.

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 the tool's complexity (2 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, criteria structure, and return format. However, it omits details about the 'extract_folder' parameter, error handling, or prerequisites. The output schema likely complements, but the description could be slightly more complete.

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 significant meaning to the 'criteria' parameter by detailing its structure (id, label, check with enum values, weight, params). However, the 'extract_folder' parameter is not described, leaving its purpose unclear. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well for the main parameter but not fully.

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: 'Aggregate scoring across multiple validators.' It specifies the verb (aggregate) and resource (multiple validators), and provides details on criteria structure, making it easy for an agent to understand what the tool does and how it differs from sibling validation 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternative sibling validators (e.g., pbi_validate_*). The description implies aggregation of scores but does not explicitly state use cases, prerequisites, or when to choose individual validators over this aggregator.

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