Run an eval suite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explicitly warns 'EXECUTES the SUT module and may call model providers, so it can incur real cost' and states 'Writes nothing — the result is returned in memory, not saved as an artifact.' This discloses side effects and persistence behavior, which is crucial for an agent deciding to run it.

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: the first states the core function, the second delivers essential warnings about cost and non-persistence. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no filler.

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 the four parameters are fully documented in the schema and the description covers side effects and return notion, the tool is largely complete. However, the absence of an output schema makes the vague 'scored result' less informative than it could be, and there is no guidance on how to interpret the result or error cases.

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?

All four parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself only reiterates 'suites at a path' and 'system-under-test module' without adding new semantics for concurrency or calibrationPath, so it adds no significant value beyond the schema.

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 'Run the suites at a path against a system-under-test module and return the scored result,' identifying the specific action (run), the resource (suites at a path + SUT module), and the output (scored result). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_suites and explain_result.

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 provides clear context for what the tool does, and the SUT execution and cost note implies when to use it (when you need to actually evaluate a module). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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