get_naming_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains output scope (0-100 score, grade) and what it measures (PEP 8 snake_case, CamelCase, UPPER_SNAKE_CASE), but it does not disclose behavior for invalid paths, whether it scans recursively, or any performance or read-only caveats.

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, front-loads the main output value, and uses no filler. Every detail supports tool selection: score range, grade, and the specific PEP 8 conventions measured.

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 one-parameter read-only scoring tool, the description provides sufficient context: it states the output type (score/grade) and the compliance rules measured. It does not need an output schema explanation, and the missing path-behavior details are minor for this tool's simplicity.

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 already fully describes the only parameter ('Directory path to check') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning about the path parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clearly defined resource ('naming convention health score') and adds measurable detail (0-100, grade, PEP 8 categories). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_naming by emphasizing the score-and-grade output rather than just checking naming.

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 a naming health score is needed, but it does not explain when to use this over the closely related sibling check_naming, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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