evidence_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing—no side effects, permissions, return format, or operational characteristics. The agent is left with zero insight into what happens when this tool is called.

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 brief, this is severe under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description provides no organized information, front-loaded or otherwise, and fails to earn its place as a useful tool description.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a complete description is essential. This description provides almost nothing, making it impossible for an agent to use the tool correctly or understand its behavior. It is completely inadequate for the tool's 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?

The schema contains 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to any of them. The description does not explain what edge_ids, node_ids, snapshot_id, or any other parameter represents, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid request.

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 a verbatim restatement of the tool name ('evidence get') with no additional information about what the tool does, what resource it operates on, or its scope. It is a pure tautology and provides no value beyond the name itself.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus any of its numerous siblings (e.g., evidence_batch_get, evidence_verify, get_nodes). The description gives the agent no context to differentiate it from alternatives.

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