calculate_integrity_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions using a State Machine for protection against AI 'cheating', which hints at some validation mechanism, but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it's a read-only analysis, a scoring algorithm, or something that modifies state. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, side effects, or what the State Machine entails.

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 brief (two sentences) and doesn't waste words, but it's also severely under-specified. While technically concise, the brevity comes at the cost of meaningful information. The structure is simple but doesn't effectively communicate the tool's purpose or usage.

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 the complexity implied by 6 parameters (3 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is inadequate. While the output schema may document return values, the description doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameters mean, or the behavioral context. For a tool with this many parameters and specialized purpose, the description leaves too many gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 6 parameters, the description provides absolutely no information about what any parameter means. It doesn't mention target_function, dependencies, verified_dependencies, or any other parameters. The description fails completely to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving all parameters semantically undefined.

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 'Рассчитывает Integrity Score' which translates to 'Calculates Integrity Score' - this is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name. While it mentions using a State Machine for AI 'cheating' protection, it doesn't explain what an Integrity Score actually measures or what resource it operates on. The purpose remains vague and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like commit_safe_edit or scan_dependencies.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (commit_safe_edit, scan_dependencies). It mentions protection against AI 'cheating' but doesn't specify the context or prerequisites for invoking this calculation. There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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