Attach Evidence

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

The description aligns with annotations (non-read-only, non-destructive) but adds no additional behavioral context such as overwrite behavior, error handling, or return values. Annotations already cover the basic behavioral profile.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It omits details on evidence constraints, return format, and overall workflow context.

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 does not explain any parameters. Without parameter elaboration, the agent has no additional meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 specific verbs ('persist', 'register') and resources ('text evidence artifact', 'durable session evidence directory', 'session metadata'), clearly distinguishing the tool's action from sibling tools that deal with judging, checking, or listing evidence.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The description lacks context about the appropriate scenarios for attaching evidence.

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