surge_evaluate_script

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and safety. It only says 'with mock environment', which suggests no real changes, but does not explicitly state whether the evaluation is read-only, modifies state, or requires permissions. No behavioral traits beyond the mock environment are revealed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could benefit from a brief note on return value or usage context.

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?

The description omits critical context: what the evaluation returns (e.g., pass/fail, logs), whether the script must be previously uploaded, and the significance of the mock environment. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context to guide the agent.

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 description does not need to explain parameters. However, it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how to combine parameters or what values are typical. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('evaluate') and resource ('script'), with the qualifier 'with mock environment', which distinguishes it from listing scripts or toggling modules. However, it doesn't differentiate from other evaluation tools or provide nuance about the evaluation type.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like surge_list_scripts (to list scripts) or surge_test_policy (to test a policy). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the script needing to exist in the list of scripts.

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