Explain 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 behavioral disclosure. The description mentions that the tool explains scoring, but it doesn't describe what the explanation entails (e.g., format, depth, or whether it's a read-only operation). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects, which are critical for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and provides an example input. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage instructions from the example.

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 (explaining scoring), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the explanation output looks like, any behavioral traits, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds some value by specifying that the 'name' parameter should be a registry server name (e.g., 'io.github.khalidsaidi/ragmap'), but it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation, such as explaining what constitutes a valid server name or any constraints beyond the example.

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: to explain RAGMap scoring for a server. It specifies the verb 'explain' and the resource 'RAGMap scoring for a server', which is more specific than just restating the name/title. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (rag_find_servers, rag_get_server, rag_list_categories), which would require a perfect score.

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool, only mentioning that it requires a registry server name as input. It offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as distinguishing it from rag_get_server or rag_list_categories, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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