Scaffold Evaluation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cases come from specific folders, are marked DRAFT, the suite is bound to the current plan, drafts are shown before running, and the toolkit never executes the evaluation. This covers key side effects and non-actions, though it does not detail file overwrite behavior or reversibility.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs in essential behavioral details efficiently without redundancy. A slightly more structured separation of purpose vs. behavior could improve readability, but it is concise and well-ordered.

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 output schema exists, return format is covered, but the tool has 2 parameters with zero schema descriptions. The description fails to explain what 'now' and 'run_dir' are, nor does it mention prerequisites or the exact relationship between the sample folders and the parameters. This is a significant gap for a tool that requires a run_dir.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'now' or 'run_dir' parameters at all. It mentions sample inputs and folders but does not map them to the schema, leaving the agent without any guidance on parameter usage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Draft' and the resource 'BYOK evaluation suite from the application's own sample inputs'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'generate_eval_suite' by emphasizing the drafting (non-executing) nature and the source of cases, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is for initial drafting ('Draft', 'before anything runs') but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like 'generate_eval_suite' or 'run_migration_eval'. It provides context (show drafts before execution) but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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