score_fixture_corpus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning a scoreboard but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the corpus, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The lack of explicit safety cues is a significant gap.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the core purpose and output. Every word is informative with no filler, earning a top score for efficiency and clarity of structure.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema), but the description lacks essential context: required input format, what constitutes a corpus, and any prerequisites. With no annotations to fall back on, this is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain the 'corpus_path' parameter. It only hints at 'local fixture corpus' without specifying path format, file/directory requirements, or any constraints. This is insufficient for an agent to determine correct input.

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 ('Evaluate'), a clear resource ('local fixture corpus'), and an explicit output ('FP/FN precision/recall scoreboard'). It uniquely identifies this tool among siblings, which are focused on scanning, validation, and audits rather than scoring a fixture corpus.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer applicability without any contextual cues or usage conditions.

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