evaluation_run

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 behavioral disclosure. It fails entirely - there is no mention of side effects, whether the operation is read-only or mutating, permission requirements, or return behavior. The phrase 'evaluation run' hints at executing something, but nothing is exposed.

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?

While short, the description is severely under-specified rather than concisely effective. It provides no useful information, so brevity here is a detriment, not a strength. The one-sentence description wastes its only opportunity to convey meaning and offers no structure.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, 5 of them required, with nested objects and no output schema. Without any behavioral or parameter description, the agent cannot know what inputs to provide, what the tool produces, or what side effects occur. This is completely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for any of the 11 parameters (5 required, including repository_id, snapshot_id, source_revision, golden_set_id, golden_set_version). The description adds zero parameter information, leaving the agent to guess what each field means and how they interact.

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 run' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It does not state what the tool does, what action it performs, or what resource it acts on. There is no verb or object that distinguishes it from any sibling tool like evaluation_golden_set or evaluation_get.

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 situations where another tool would be more appropriate. An agent is left completely without direction.

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