preview_scorecard

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that no account/login/API key is required, that the tool forces 'scene' to 'scored_quiz', that it returns a shareable browser link, and that it accepts only finished assessment JSON. These are useful behavioral facts not expressed in the structured fields; only minor details like validation-error behavior are omitted.

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?

Four dense sentences, purpose front-loaded before usage, alternatives, and precondition. Every sentence carries distinct information: the definition, the no-auth constraint, the routing rules, and the preview_guide dependency. The length is fully justified by the three-way sibling routing complexity; there is no filler.

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 that an output schema exists, return-value documentation is unnecessary. The description covers the entire decision surface: selection criteria, exclusions naming both alternatives, input sourcing via preview_guide, and auth requirements. An agent can correctly select and prepare an invocation from this text alone.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% — the form parameter is already documented with its shape, the reference to preview_guide for the structure, and the forced 'scene' value. The description adds modest reinforcement ('takes the finished assessment JSON and nothing else') but no substantive new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a shareable RooQuiz preview scorecard') and immediately defines the concept ('each option adds points toward a total that buckets into levels'). It also states what it is not — no 'correct' answer — which distinguishes it from the graded-quiz sibling without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when' and enumerates concrete scenarios (self-assessment, health/habit score, readiness/maturity check, satisfaction survey). It then routes to alternatives with precise conditions: 'For a right/wrong graded quiz, use the preview-quiz skill; for a personality/type test with no scores, use the preview-outcome skill.' It also states a precondition to call preview_guide if the schema is not already in context.

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