Score a status update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool scores against a rubric and suggests fixes, adding context about its analytical nature. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what output format is returned, or any side effects. For a simple scoring tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and context; the second sentence explains the rubric criteria. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool without an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and scoring criteria. It implies the output (score and suggested fixes) but does not explicitly describe the return format. Given the low complexity, this is nearly complete, though a bit more detail on output would make it fully self-contained.

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% for the single parameter 'update', which is described as 'The draft status update to score.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, just repeating 'draft status update.' Since the schema already provides full coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb 'Score' and resource 'draft status update' against a named rubric, and it lists rubric criteria ('surface blockers early, state outcomes over activity, link to the work'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_async_standup or convert_meeting_to_async, which serve different purposes.

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 makes clear that the tool is for scoring a draft status update, providing context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous and the sibling tools are unrelated, so the implied usage is sufficient.

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