workspace_get_evidence

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Return', which implies a non-mutating read, but it does not disclose error behavior, whether node and edge IDs share a namespace, or any prerequisites. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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 with no filler; the verb and object come first. It is appropriately short for the simple interface.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without enough context about valid IDs, return shape, and failure modes. The one-sentence description is too sparse to confidently invoke this tool among more than 40 siblings.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the sole parameter node_or_edge_id is undocumented. The description mentions 'one evidence node or edge' but gives no ID format, examples, or guidance on how to distinguish node IDs from edge IDs.

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 ('Return'), a specific target ('one evidence node or edge'), and the content type ('metadata and source spans'). It is clearly distinct from sibling getters like workspace_get_paper and workspace_get_result, though 'evidence node' is somewhat domain-specific.

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 guidance is given on when to choose this tool over siblings such as workspace_get_source_slice, workspace_get_citations, or workspace_get_dependencies. The phrasing only implies use when evidence metadata/source spans are needed, with no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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