skill_grade

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

The description states 'grade work' which implies a write operation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a read-only, idempotent operation. This is a direct contradiction, severely misleading the agent about the tool's side effects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and the key purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema exists (per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. However, the contradiction and lack of detail about when to use heuristics vs explicit scores leave gaps in completeness for a grading tool.

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 documentation covers all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value beyond what is already in the schema. The mention of 'scores_json' reinforces its role but does not introduce new semantic meaning.

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 verb 'grade' and specifies the resource 'work against a book rubric (L4)', distinguishing it from sibling tools that may not involve rubric-based grading. It also hints at a preference for explicit scoring.

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 advises 'Prefer explicit scores_json over heuristics', giving clear guidance on when to use the optional parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives like skill_match.

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