tempo_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return values and the Free/Pro tier restriction on the scoring window. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though 'compute' implies it), how the Free tier handles a window_days greater than 7, or any error conditions.

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 three sentences long and each sentence carries value: the purpose, the return metrics, and the tier constraint. There is no verbosity or redundant content.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives the high-level behavior and return fields, which helps. However, parameter semantics and edge cases (e.g., Free tier behavior with window_days > 7) are unclear, leaving the context only somewhat complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. The mention of 'Free tier scores over the last 7 days; Pro over any window' relates to window_days but does not explicitly define that window_days sets the lookback period or its valid range. This leaves ambiguity, providing minimal compensation.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('Tempo score'), and enumerates the supporting metrics returned, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'recommend_actions' or 'weekly_digest'.

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 this tool is for retrieving the current tempo score and mentions tier-specific window limitations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other tools (e.g., 'weekly_digest') or provide exclusion criteria.

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