Get Security Score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing what data is returned (score and open findings by severity, plus optional daily history) and the semantic of trendDays. It doesn't mention any side effects (none expected), and the read-only nature is consistent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the optional parameter is explained with its purpose, and the prerequisite is noted. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and comprehend quickly.

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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information: what it returns (score, open findings count by severity, optional daily history) and the prerequisite of project context. It doesn't detail the exact JSON structure of the response, but for a read-only score retrieval tool, that's acceptable. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description's explicit mention of the returned data.

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 already documents trendDays with a clear description ('Days of score history to include, 1-365. Omit for the current score only.'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds extra meaning by explaining why you'd pass it ('to also get the daily score history... how you tell whether a project is improving or drifting'), which goes beyond the schema's syntactic definition and helps the agent understand the parameter's purpose.

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 the tool's purpose: getting the active project's security score (0-100) and count of open findings by severity. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_security_findings (which likely returns the list of findings) and get_governance_score (which is a different metric) by specifying the exact resource and output. The verb 'Get' plus resource 'security score' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use this tool: when you need the security score and open findings count, and explicitly describes how to use trendDays to get history for trend detection ('that is how you tell whether a project is improving or drifting'). It also states a prerequisite ('Requires project context'). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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