01Safety
30.0 / 30
What changed in the harness
Selection accuracy 100%, destructive-action safety rate 100% (baseline only -- no rewrite pass applied).
Category breakdown
Where the score comes from.
Earned points across the four signals Gradable measures. Safety and Legibility are scored out of 30; Economics and Discoverability are scored out of 20.
02Legibility
29.9 / 30
03Economics
20.0 / 20
04Discoverability
16.2 / 20
Highest-impact fix
Estimated gain +4 pointsMake target tools discoverable on the first call
Clarify tool names, decision boundaries, and required argument schemas so an agent can choose and construct the target call without exploratory steps.
Description evidence
Defects and rewrites.
0 defects found across the exposed tool descriptions. Suggested rewrites make purpose, inputs, boundaries, and returns easier for an agent to understand.
| Tool | Defect types | Suggested rewrite |
|---|---|---|
| No description defects were flagged in this assessment. | ||
Selection evidence
Confusable tool pairs.
1 pair where similar names or overlapping descriptions may send an agent toward the wrong tool.
| Tool A | Tool B | Confidence | Why they collide |
|---|---|---|---|
analyze_chord |
resolve_chord |
low | Both accept a chord symbol and both can surface notes, intervals, or qualities, so a vague task like 'break down Dm7' could fit either. However, the outputs are largely disjoint: analyze_chord emphasizes quality/extensions/harmonic function (with key), while resolve_chord emphasizes pitch spelling, frequencies, MIDI, and scales. The distinct verbs 'analyze' vs 'resolve' plus clearly differentiated output purposes make genuine mis-selection unlikely for most natural-language tasks. |
Compare the field