scorecard

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is not purely read-only, but the description gives no explanation of what side effect or mutation may occur. It also does not mention refresh behavior, caching, permissions, or external data access, leaving a meaningful gap for a non-destructive but non-read-only tool.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the main content of the scorecard. It is appropriately sized, though the parenthetical question makes it slightly less crisp.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return values, and it adequately states what the scorecard covers. However, it omits usage context and does not clarify the non-read-only behavior signaled by annotations, leaving some gaps 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?

There is one optional parameter, refresh, and the schema already describes it at 100% coverage as fetching the latest prices from Yahoo Finance. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 resource and content of the scorecard: tracked thesis performance versus benchmarks, outcomes, and confidence calibration. It is specific enough to distinguish this from thesis management tools like track_thesis or update_thesis, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would infer this is for reviewing thesis performance and calibration. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus thesis_memo, digest, audit, or brief, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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