keel_list_evidence

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. 'List' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it disclose pagination, ordering, rate limits, or auth prerequisites. It focuses almost entirely on output fields rather than behaviorial context.

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 that starts with the core purpose ('List collected evidence') and then lists output fields. While the field list is long, it is relevant and compact. It earns its place because no output schema exists to carry that information. Minimal waste, though formatting could be cleaner.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the return field names, which is helpful. However, it omits any statement about pagination, result size limits, ordering, or the 'since' filtering behavior (which is only in schema). It is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 100% for the sole optional 'sinc e' parameter, so the input schema already documents the meaning. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, but it does not need to since the baseline of 3 applies when schema fully covers the parameter semantics.

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?

States the specific verb 'List' and resource 'collected evidence' and enumerates the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from every sibling list/create tool, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema. No ambiguity remains across the keel family.

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?

The description does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use exclusions. Usage is implied by the resource name and verb: to get collected evidence, use this tool. No competing list tool targets evidence, so an agent would likely infer correctly, but the description itself offers no explicit routing guidance.

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