score_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It describes the tool as a read-only reference with no side effects, which is transparent. A higher score would require mentioning response length or potential limitations, but the core behavior is clearly stated.

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 sentence plus a directive, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every clause adds value: what it covers, why call it first, and what not to do. No wasted words.

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 purpose as a reference and no output schema, the description comprehensively lists what it contains: grammar, instrument presets with parameters, assertions, and a worked example. It also connects to render_score, making the context 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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description goes beyond the schema by detailing the content returned (grammar, presets, assertions, examples), which fully compensates for the absence of parameters. The baseline is 4 for 0 parameters.

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 it is a reference for the RON score grammar, instrument presets, assertions, and a worked example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like render_score by explicitly being a reference companion.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call this FIRST when composing' and explains that render_score accepts what is documented here, warning against guessing the format. This provides clear when-to-use guidance.

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