get_profile_scores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only (likely safe), if there are side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The only behavioral insight is that profileId is a 'lens, not a container', which is more semantic than behavioral. The description falls short in this dimension.

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 extremely concise: two sentences totaling ~30 words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word is purposeful, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify what the tool returns (e.g., structure of scores, format). It also fails to explain the roles of filtering parameters (reasonIds, checkerIds, directoryIds) beyond their names. Given four parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete; it tells the agent when to use the tool but not what to expect in the response or how the filtering works.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds extra meaning for profileId by clarifying it is a 'configuration profile (a lens, not a container)'. However, it does not elaborate on the other parameters (reasonIds, checkerIds, directoryIds). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description provides marginal added value for one parameter.

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: 'Get the directories score by profile'. It specifies the resource (directories score) and action (get), and clarifies that profileId selects a configuration profile (a lens, not a container), distinguishing it from potentially confusing concepts. This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools like get_profile (which gets the profile itself).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'If the user has not specified a profile, call get_preferred_profile (or get_preferences) and use preferredProfileId — do not assume profile 1.' This tells the agent not to assume a default profile and directs it to alternative tools for determining the correct profileId, eliminating ambiguity.

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