List eval suites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of safety disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only — no model calls, no cost', which is important behavioral info. It also mentions 'validate', implying it may error on invalid input, but doesn't detail error behavior. Overall, good transparency for a simple tool.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the action and return values, second provides a safety note. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool has one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description compensates well by listing the return components and explicitly stating the read-only behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use it correctly.

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% for the single parameter 'suitePath', and the description only restates the same meaning ('directory or file') without adding extra details like formats or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 it loads and validates eval suites, and enumerates exactly what it returns (suite name, cases, assertions, threshold policy). This distinguishes it from siblings like run_suite, which would execute suites.

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 read-only note ('no model calls, no cost') provides clear context for when to use this tool—for inspection rather than execution. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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