get_reliability_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly defines the score's meaning and formula, and the verb 'Get' implies a non-mutating read operation. It doesn't discuss error handling or permissions, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is sufficient context.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and define the metric. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns (0-100 score) and how it's computed. Sibling tool names provide surrounding context, and the description is complete enough for a low-complexity tool.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'hours' as 'last N hours' and implicitly the meaning of the score. 'agent_id' is self-explanatory from the name. The description adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

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?

Description states a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'reliability score for an agent', with a precise definition (0-100, percentage of successful tool calls). This clearly differentiates from siblings like analyze_failures or generate_audit_report, which focus on analysis and reporting.

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 this is a read-only query tool for reliability metrics, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like analyze_failures or generate_audit_report. The context of siblings suggests it's for direct score retrieval, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided.

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