evaluate_context_pack

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

The annotation declares destructiveHint: true, indicating the tool modifies data. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation already provides, missing details like what gets destroyed or side effects.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is overly terse and lacks structure. It meets the minimum conciseness standard but omits necessary detail.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, destructive nature, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, required fields beyond the two required, or how to properly structure the evaluation outcome.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any of the 6 parameters, including complex nested objects like rubricScores and guardrails. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 verb 'Record' and the resource 'evaluation outcome for a context pack', making the action and object clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like capture_feedback or finalize_feedback_session, which also deal with recording outcomes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on prerequisites or exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it.

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