Score portal quality (blocks + pages, with baseline delta)

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

Adds significant context beyond annotations: explains that scratch records are excluded, and with version control, it compares against baseline. Also clarifies the idempotent nature (score same data yields same scores) and that update_baseline=true saves state. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear, direct language. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. Minor wordiness in the loop discipline statement but overall 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?

Covers the main points: scoring criteria, exclusion of scratch records, and baseline delta. However, with no output schema, it could hint at the return format (e.g., list of scores) to better aid invocation. Adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema descriptions verbatim, adding no extra meaning beyond what's already in the input schema.

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 scores blocks and pages 0-100 on mechanically checkable aspects, and distinguishes itself by clarifying what 100 means (not 'well designed'). It also mentions the baseline delta feature, setting it apart from siblings like snapshot_portal and validate_block.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (scoring with version control) and what is excluded (scratch-marked records, handled by cleanup_scratch). Provides a workflow: score, improve, re-score, and only update_baseline after verified improvement. This gives clear guidance on tool usage and alternatives.

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