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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are scoped to the active workspace and include target config, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or volume.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The resource/scope statement comes first and the routing hint second, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what each listed eval contains (target config with flow and dataset/rubric). For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage on its one parameter, this is nearly sufficient; only pagination/ordering behavior is unaddressed.

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?

Single optional workspace parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics (default workspace, override behavior, API-key case). The description's 'active workspace' phrasing aligns with that. Zero-param-adjacent baseline applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) plus resource (evals) and narrows the scope to the active workspace, then names the returned content (target config: which Workbench flow, dataset/rubric). This distinguishes it from caliper_evals_get (single eval) and caliper_evals_run, which it routes the agent toward.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to find the evalId needed by caliper_evals_run. That is a clear downstream purpose, but it names no alternative for other discovery needs (e.g. caliper_evals_get for a known id) and gives no exclusions.

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