seshat_export_evidence_pack

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

Discloses read-only behavior ('Read-only: creates nothing on disk'), corrects the misleading name, and explains the return projection and the 'input_defect' outcome. This goes beyond the annotations by adding functional context and edge-case behavior.

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 brief, front-loaded with the core action, and uses explicit labeled sections (Use when, Not for, Returns, Read-only). Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 only two params, a high-coverage schema, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: purpose, exclusions, return value, error outcome, and safety. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant param-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides; it only references 'the named table' without elaborating on parameter formats or constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Assemble one table's evidence pack in memory and return it as data.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from file export ('despite the name nothing is exported') and from sibling tools by focusing on in-memory assembly for review or handoff.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' conditions: use for reviewing/handing off evidence as structured data, not for writing to disk. This clearly signals when to choose this tool over a CLI-based file export, and the context is unambiguous.

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