CDD maturity score

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return contents (0-100 score, letter grade, per-category breakdown), which no output schema provides.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core verb and result, with the output shape appended compactly. No filler or 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?

For a read-only single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately. It could mention the served-directory context or prerequisites, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema describes it fully (100% coverage), including the base-directory fallback behavior. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('the project's CDD maturity score') plus the output shape (0-100, letter grade, per-category breakdown). It is clearly distinct from the verify/guard/report/read siblings, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

No indication of when to reach for docguard_score versus docguard_report, docguard_diagnose, or docguard_explain. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a scoring/assessment entry point rather than a diagnostics or reporting one.

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