get_docstring_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'penalizes low-quality docstrings' and 'shows worst files', which gives insight into the scoring behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, does not modify files, or any permissions needed. For a scoring tool, the lack of explicit safety guarantees is a minor gap, but the behavioral description is reasonably informative.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and result, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it measures, and that it shows worst files. It does not mention return format details (e.g., JSON structure), but the description already states 'score (0-100) with grade', which is sufficient for most uses. It could note limitations or edge cases, but for a health score tool, this is nearly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds 'Measures what percentage...' which indirectly clarifies the path parameter but does not go beyond the schema's 'Directory path to audit.' It does not explain format, constraints, or what happens if path is invalid. Since the schema fully describes the parameter, the description adds minimal extra semantic value, so a 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 tool's purpose: 'Get a docstring coverage health score (0-100) with grade.' It also specifies what it measures ('percentage of public entities have docstrings') and additional output ('Shows worst files'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_todo_score. The verb 'get' + resource 'docstring score' is specific.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_docstrings or get_todo_score. There is no mention of 'use this for a quick health score' or 'use audit_docstrings for a detailed audit'. The intended context is only implied by the description, which is insufficient for an agent to differentiate usage scenarios.

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