evaluate_on_validation_set

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the SSH execution method and dry-run default behavior, which adds transparency. However, it does not mention side effects, safety profile, or what happens when SSH is fully configured.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action. Every word adds value, but it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 complexity (SSH, dry-run, nested eval_spec object), the description is too minimal. It does not explain output, configuration requirements, or how to set up the SSH context. Critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter ('target' or 'eval_spec'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is insufficient given the coverage gap.

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 'Run eval' and the resource 'client validation set', with a specific context 'via SSH'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'evaluate_on_synthetic' or 'compute_metrics', so purpose is clear but not uniquely distinguished.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The dry-run note implies a condition, but no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context is provided.

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