Get Governance Score

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, but the description explicitly states that scope 'spec' writes a new snapshot, may raise alerts, and is not a free read. This is a direct contradiction between the described behavior and the annotation, which is a serious inconsistency for an agent relying on safety hints.

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?

Three sentences deliver all essential information: what the tool returns, the default scope, the per-spec behavior, and the context requirement. The format is front-loaded and every sentence carries meaningful content without repetition.

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 moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral differences, side effects, and prerequisites. The only notable gap is that it doesn't explain what happens when project context is missing for scope 'spec', but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 schema fully documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that specId triggers a live recalculation with side effects and that project context is required, going beyond the schema's simple 'required for spec' note.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as a quality score, with clear scoping distinctions between org-level averaging and per-spec recalculation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_security_score by describing the aggregation behavior and breakdown output.

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 gives clear context for both scopes: org is the default and aggregates, while spec requires specId and carries side effects. It also states the project context prerequisite for scope 'spec', giving an agent actionable conditions for choosing the right invocation, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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