tie_scores

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

The description discloses the return format (list of {directoryId, score}), explains that higher is better, and clarifies that scores reflect 'outstanding IoE deviances.' Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden. It does not detail side effects or auth needs, but for a read operation this is acceptable.

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 succinct: two sentences plus an Args line. It front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, and parameter meaning. It lacks details on potential errors or how 'IoE deviances' relate, but overall it is sufficient for use.

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 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the parameter: 'Security profile id (default 1).' This adds meaning beyond the type and default. However, it does not elaborate on how to find or interpret profile IDs.

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 function: 'Get per-directory security scores for a profile.' It specifies the resource (per-directory security scores) and the action (get). The output format is described, and it is distinct from sibling tools which cover alerts, attacks, catalog, etc.

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 versus siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools, explicit usage context would be beneficial.

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