martin_eval

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's 'Grade' action is consistent. However, the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what happens if inputs are missing, or how the grading is computed). It does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without superfluous words.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal for a tool that evaluates multiple criteria. It lacks context on the grading scale, criteria details, and how the output is structured, which is important given the diverse sibling tools.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of the four parameters (file, loopId, latest, runsDir). The oneOf constraint is not clarified, leaving the agent without guidance on how to choose between them.

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 uses a specific verb 'Grade' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a Martin run', listing the aspects evaluated (task completion, verifier health, diff discipline, risk, reviewability). It distinguishes from sibling tools like martin_inspect or martin_get_run by focusing on grading rather than inspection or retrieval.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over its many siblings (e.g., martin_pr_summary, martin_get_run), nor does it specify prerequisites or alternative tools.

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