Show TestDino Audit Scorecard

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only.' Beyond that, the description usefully discloses what the returned scorecard contains: score band, lost points, top issues, and a full-report link. It does not cover pagination, error behavior when no audit exists, or auth requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core action and read-only nature, then gives usage criteria and parameter selection guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the scorecard's return contents. The three-parameter schema is fully documented, and the read-only annotation covers safety. The main remaining gap is that the relationship to sibling get_audit_report is not explained, but the definition is otherwise complete enough to call the tool correctly.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds a little operational meaning by saying reportId selects a specific report, omission selects the latest, and branch scopes the latest report. That mostly restates the schema rather than adding substantial new semantics, 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 states a specific verb and resource: it shows a saved TestDino Playwright audit as a scorecard. It also enumerates the scorecard contents (score band, lost points, top issues, link), which makes the tool easy to identify. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_audit_report, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Use when the user asks to see, show or summarize an audit report.' It also explains reportId versus omission for the latest report and the optional branch scoping. However, it does not name or exclude the sibling get_audit_report, so the alternative is left implicit.

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