get_scorecard_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation ('get full details') but does not disclose behaviors like error handling, required permissions, or rate limits. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but lacks extra context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and included details without any wasted words. Every word 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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns. It could mention the output structure, but that is not necessary for a straightforward retrieval 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'id' described as 'Scorecard template ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get full details' and the resource 'scorecard template', and specifies what is included: questions, feedback/rating descriptions, and segmentation. This distinguishes it from sibling 'list_scorecard_templates' which likely provides only summary information.

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 implies use when you need the full details of a specific template, contrasting with list tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_scorecard_templates' for overviews.

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