evaluation_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it has, or what the response shape might be. The description contributes nothing beyond the name.

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 extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than concise effectiveness. Two words provide no structural benefit; it is not front-loaded with useful information because there is no information at all.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a terse description, the tool is completely under-documented. An agent cannot reasonably determine how to call this tool correctly or interpret results.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. The sole required parameter, evaluation_run_id, is not described, leaving the agent without any understanding of what values are valid or what it represents.

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 is simply 'evaluation get', which is a tautology of the tool name. It does not state what entity is being fetched, what the tool does, or how it differs from sibling tools like evaluation_golden_set or evaluation_run.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about the intended use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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