Check whether the judge was calibrated

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only,' which is a critical safety trait, and explains that it reads a specific file and reports agreement. It does not mention failure modes or return format, but for a simple status read, this is sufficient transparency.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and uses the metaphor 'random number generator with good manners' to add context without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple status-check tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the file, explains what the report contains, and gives usage timing. It could describe the output shape in more detail, but the core purpose is fully covered.

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 coverage is 100%, with both calibrationPath and judgeId described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Read .evalgate/calibration.json and report the judge’s measured agreement with human scores.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_suites, explain_result, check_drift, and run_suite, which all focus on different aspects of the tool ecosystem.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'call this before trusting any rubric or grounded score.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would earn a 5.

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