CDD maturity score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the output format (letter grade and breakdown). It does not contradict annotations but also does not disclose additional traits like performance characteristics or required environment setup.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and output format. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 single optional parameter, rich annotations, and clear output description (score range, letter grade, breakdown), the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity. It lacks only a mention of whether the score is computed immediately or cached, but this is minor.

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 input schema provides full coverage for the single parameter (projectDir), including its type, description, and default behavior. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific semantics, so it meets the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 computes a CDD maturity score with a specific range (0-100), letter grade, and per-category breakdown. It uses a specific verb ('Compute') and identifies the resource ('project's CDD maturity score'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like docguard_diagnose or docguard_explain.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description only states what the tool does without mentioning prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or trade-offs relative to other tools like docguard_verify_claims.

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