kpi_rubrics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It describes the returned data (metric keys, thresholds, etc.) but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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-loaded with the tool's return value and scope, followed by usage guidance. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or filler.

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 has 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers the return structure and usage context well. It lacks explicit defaults for chapter and could be more specific about what 'current' quarter means, but overall it is adequate.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (chapter enum, quarter format/default). The description restates the scope but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides.

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 returns rubric thresholds and criteria for a chapter in a quarter, specifying the returned fields (metric keys, thresholds, multipliers, data sources). It also provides a usage context (before generating reports), which helps differentiate it from other tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a clear usage context ('Use to understand scoring rules before generating reports') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to siblings like kpi_chapter or kpi_member_kpi.

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