evidence_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: results are paginated and content is redacted. It does not state permission/auth requirements, what 'redacted' removes, how an invalid or missing id behaves, or any rate/size limits beyond pagination.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the key scoping qualifiers come first. It is arguably too terse for a nine-parameter tool, which costs it a point, but there is no padding or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a nine-parameter filter tool with zero annotation coverage the description omits filter-combination logic, valid 'view' values beyond the default 'raw', and pagination behavior. An agent would have to inspect the schema and guess at semantics for most of the parameters.

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% across nine parameters, and the description only names evidence_id and job_id without clarifying their semantics (mutually exclusive? ANDed with other filters?). The remaining seven parameters — view, limit, offset, method, status_code, url_contains, engagement_id — get no mention at all, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb ('access') and resource ('raw evidence artifacts') and scopes it to retrieval by evidence_id or job_id, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like memory_query or job_status. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, keeping it just under a 5.

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 phrase 'by evidence_id or job_id' hints at two retrieval paths but never says when to choose one over the other, whether they can be combined, or what to do when neither is known. There are no exclusions and no named alternatives among the nine siblings.

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