run_evaluation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but discloses no behavioral traits, side effects, or expected outcomes. It doesn't say what 'evaluation harness' does or what happens when run.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It's concise, though not particularly informative.

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 no annotations and an extremely sparse description, the tool's operation and purpose remain unclear. The output schema exists but is not helpful in the description. For a no-parameter tool, more could be said about the evaluation process or expected behavior.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema lists none. Per guidelines, this is baseline 4; the description is not required to explain parameter details.

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 clear action ('Run') and resource ('OpenGrants evaluation harness'), but leaves the tool's precise function and scope undefined. It distinguishes from siblings at a high level (no other sibling is about evaluation), but 'basic' is vague.

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 offers no guidance on when to run this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't mention if this is for testing, validating, or something else.

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