reinvent_custom_scoring_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: atomic write operation, runtime discovery, TODO placeholder behavior, permission restrictions preventing later edits, automatic smoke testing, and the exact return payload. This goes well beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 well-structured: a concise purpose statement, a critical IMPORTANT callout, a bulleted Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy—and the most critical usage requirement is front-loaded.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers inputs, outputs, side effects, and error behavior. It even explains the smoke test flow and says that test_result appears in the response, making the invocation contract 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?

The schema has 0% coverage from description text, but the description's Args block documents all 12 parameters with meaning, defaults, and examples (e.g., test_params with scalar list-wrapping). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing agents with the necessary context to fill parameters correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb-object statement: 'Generate a valid comp_*.py plugin file for REINVENT4.' This clearly states the tool's primary function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like reinvent_test_scoring_component or reinvent_sampling by focusing on plugin generation.

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 IMPORTANT section provides explicit usage guidance: always provide implementation_code, write it as unindented Python, indentation is added automatically, and the file cannot be edited afterward. It also explains when the smoke test runs. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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