icf_score_instrument

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns total score, severity level, ICF qualifier mapping, and clinical guidance. It also explains inputs with an example. However, it does not address edge cases such as invalid instrument names, mismatched response lengths, or error behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the main purpose in the first line, then provides clear parameter details with examples, and concludes with a summary of returns. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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 2 parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the key aspects: input format with examples, and output components (total score, severity, mapping, guidance). It could be more complete by noting validation requirements (e.g., response count must match instrument items), but the information provided is sufficient for typical use.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining the 'name' parameter as 'Instrument name or abbreviation (e.g., 'GAD-7', 'PHQ-9', 'SLEDAI')' and the 'responses' parameter as 'List of response values, one per item in order (e.g., [1, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 1] for GAD-7).' This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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: 'Score a completed assessment instrument and get clinical interpretation.' It specifies the verb 'score', the resource 'completed assessment instrument', and the outcome. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like icf_browse_category or icf_build_profile.

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 usage when you have a completed instrument by instructing to 'Pass the instrument name and a list of integer responses.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions to avoid using it. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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