score_schema

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: unknown keys are rejected rather than ignored, and the result contains copyable examples, enum values, and indexing rules. This significantly helps the agent trust and correctly use the output.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and clearly structured into use-case guidance and return-value details. Every sentence adds information and no space is wasted.

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 parameterless, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It explains when to call it, what it does, a critical parser behavior, and the contents of the returned example. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description instead explains what the returned result contains, which is the relevant semantic information for a no-input tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('ScoreSpec input format') and names the downstream tools that consume it (write_score/render_to_dorico). This cleanly differentiates the tool from all data-retrieval or editing siblings.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call this instead of guessing or reading source, which tells the agent when to use this tool and removes ambiguity. It also implies the tool is a prerequisite for write_score/render_to_dorico, providing clear contextual guidance.

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