ami_get_scorecard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that every value is computed from the run's own data and that the server calls no model, which is important behavioral context for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It does not cover error cases or side effects, but for a read-only getter the key behavioral risk is addressed.

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?

Two sentences, both high-value. The first front-loads the exact contents of the scorecard; the second provides important behavioral transparency and a practical instruction about prose generation. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple, one-optional-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how the data is produced. It lacks a few details like exact field structure or error conditions, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the only parameter, run_id, including its default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's resource and output: the scorecard for a submitted run, including AMI Maturity Index, Performance Score, five pillars, and structured findings. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ami_get_report, but the specific list of outputs makes the purpose fairly 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 implies when to use the tool: when you need structured scorecard data for a run. It also gives a clear instruction about not using the output as prose and instead writing prose from narration_brief.findings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to choose a sibling tool instead.

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