score_memories

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. 'Score previous exchange outcomes' does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, mutates data, requires authorization, or has side effects. It offers virtually no behavioral insight.

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 extremely short (3 words), which under both conciseness and structure. It provides no additional information, making it more under-specified than concise. The brevity harms usefulness.

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 has a nested object parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description should compensate with richer context. It fails to explain the scoring mechanism, expected input format, or return value, leaving the agent with almost no useful information.

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 has one parameter 'memory_scores' (object) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what this parameter represents, what keys or values it expects, or any constraints. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Score previous exchange outcomes' provides a verb and resource, but the meaning of 'score' is ambiguous—it could mean evaluate, assign a rating, or keep track. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'record_response' or 'add_to_memory_bank', which have clearer purposes.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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