art.critic.evaluate

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must fully carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose core behaviors ('spatial scoring and issue detection') and implies a non-mutating evaluation, but it omits any mention of return structure, side effects, permissions, or whether the critic persists history. This partial disclosure is better than zero context, but still leaves key behavioral aspects implicit.

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 sentence that leads with the actionable verb 'Run' and packs meaningful qualification ('art critic', 'canvas quality', 'spatial scoring', 'issue detection') without filler. It is efficiently structured and easy to scan.

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?

Enough to prompt the evaluator, but not enough to complete the picture. There is no output schema, no annotation, and the description doesn't specify whether the result is a score, a list of issues, or a report, nor does it explain the profile parameter despite that being a user-supplied input. An agent could invoke the tool correctly, but it would remain unclear how to interpret the response.

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 both session_id and profile. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, but this is acceptable because the schema handles the semantics; it merely doesn't enrich the 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 uses a specific verb 'Run' and names a concrete resource ('canvas quality') evaluated by an 'art critic'. It further narrows the intent by specifying the two core behaviors: spatial scoring and issue detection. This makes the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from closely related siblings such as art.critic.refine.

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?

There is no explicit or implied guidance about when to use this tool or when to choose an alternative. The description only restates what the tool does and does not mention sibling tools such as art.critic.refine or art.canvas.analyze_ref, nor any exclusions, prerequisites, or triggering conditions.

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