tie_scores

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format as a list of {directoryId, score} and interprets the score direction ('higher is better; scores reflect outstanding IoE deviances'), which is valuable context. The verb 'Get' and 'Returns' imply a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state side-effect freedom or error behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: a purpose statement, a return-value explanation, and a parameter description. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary 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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential input and output semantics. It explains the returned list structure and score interpretation, making it nearly complete. It does not define 'IoE deviances' or cover pagination, but these may be domain-specific or irrelevant for this tool.

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 compensate. It adds the meaning 'Security profile id' and notes the default value, which the schema alone does not provide. This is adequate for the single 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 'Get per-directory security scores for a profile', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on scores rather than raw deviances or topology.

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 it is used for retrieving a summary of security posture per directory, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives like tie_deviances_by_directory, nor does it state exclusions. The context is clear but no direct comparisons are given.

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