get_evaluator_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the output is JSON, the returned struct fields, and notably that instance data is NOT included.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and reasonably sized. Slightly redundant: the field list (evaluator_index, class, instance_id, properties) appears once inline and again in the trailing 'Returns:' line, costing a little efficiency.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full annotations and full schema coverage, the definition is nearly complete and even spells out the return shape despite no output schema. Missing only explicit guidance on when to prefer the sibling property getters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents tree_path (asset path format) and evaluator_index (0-based, out-of-range is an error). The description only restates that the index comes from list_evaluators and adds no format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 and resource: read/dump one tree-scoped evaluator of a StateTree asset. It also names the sibling (list_evaluators) that finds the index, so an agent can distinguish it from the listing and property-editing evaluator tools.

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 routes the agent to list_evaluators to obtain the required index, which gives clear usage context. It doesn't state when-not to use it (e.g., versus get_evaluator_property for a single field), so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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