score_agent_reliability_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It clarifies input requirements (log entry fields) but does not describe edge-case behavior, computation details, or handling of malformed data. As a read-only computation tool, it omits side-effect disclosures that would be needed for mutating tools.

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 purpose, then a compact list of expected fields. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description still leaves gaps: no mention of how weights affect scoring, no guidance on edge cases like empty logs or missing fields, and no interpretation of the reliability score. Enough for a simple tool, but missing key usage context.

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% description coverage. The description adds valuable semantics for the 'logs' array structure (expected fields like tool_name, success, latency_ms), but it does not explain the 'weights' parameter at all, leaving that parameter underspecified.

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 action ('Compute overall reliability score (0-100)') with a clear resource ('from tool-call logs') and output range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_silent_failures or generate_audit_report, which focus on different aspects.

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 usage: when you have tool-call logs and need a reliability score. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings, leaving some room for confusion in edge cases.

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