Evaluate Context Pack

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

The description only says 'Record evaluation outcome', which implies a write operation, but adds no behavioral details beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or what happens to existing data. The annotation already signals mutation, so the description adds minimal value.

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 fluff, achieving conciseness. However, it is too brief for the tool's complexity, lacking critical details. It is front-loaded but under-serves the informational needs of the agent.

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, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context on return values, prerequisites, or how the evaluation outcome is recorded. The agent would have insufficient information to use the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters (including nested objects), the description fails to add meaning to any parameter. It does not hint at the structure or purpose of fields like 'signal', 'notes', 'rubricScores', or 'guardrails'. The minimal compensation expected from the description is absent.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('evaluation outcome for a context pack'), clearly stating the action. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'construct_context_pack' or 'append_feedback_context', which may also involve 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context where this tool is appropriate vs. other evaluation or feedback tools.

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