Explain an eval result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by explicitly stating 'Read-only'. It also discloses what the explanation covers (gates, failed cases, per-assertion and claim-level breakdown), giving a clear picture of the tool's behavior and output without revealing internals.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Read... and explain why it passed or failed') and structured to list the explanation contents. The final 'Read-only' is a concise, valuable note with no redundancy.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. It covers read-only behavior and the scope of the explanation, which is adequate for a simple read tool. It doesn't discuss error cases or relationship to siblings, but that's not essential.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds the artifact path example (.evalgate/result.json) but does not go beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions for resultPath or failuresOnly. It provides no additional meaning for the failuresOnly parameter.

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 tool's verb and resource: 'Read an evalgate result artifact' and 'explain why it passed or failed'. It also details specific output elements (which gates tripped, cases failed, per-assertion explanations, claim-level grounding breakdown), fully distinguishing it from siblings like list_suites or run_suite.

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 usage after a run (explaining an existing result artifact) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It lacks a direct 'use this instead of X' or 'after run_suite' guidance.

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