evaluation_golden_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides zero information about side effects, required permissions, data mutation, or return behavior. The phrase 'golden set' suggests a data structure, but the tool's behavior is entirely unspecified.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It contains no useful information and fails to front-load any meaningful content. A description of six words that repeats the name offers no structural value.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fundamentally inadequate. An agent would have no idea what inputs to provide, what outputs to expect, or what side effects might occur. The description does not come close to enabling correct invocation.

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 mentions no parameters. Despite 7 parameters including cases (required), actor, request_id, etc., the description provides no hints about their meaning, format, or relationships. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 'evaluation golden set' is a tautology of the tool name. It lacks any verb or action to indicate what the tool does. There is no mention of creating, retrieving, validating, or manipulating a golden set, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as evaluation_run or evaluation_get. The description gives no context, no prerequisites, and no explicit or implied usage scenarios.

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