scf_bulk_assess_evidence

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: async execution, editor+ role requirement, max batch size of 50, and return of count queued. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it effectively conveys safety and concurrency constraints.

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?

Extremely concise: three short sentences covering purpose, constraints, and return value. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with core action.

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?

Covers essential info: operation nature, input options, return format, and key constraints. Lacks mention of error handling or follow-up steps for the async job, but output schema is absent and tool complexity is moderate, so description is sufficiently complete.

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?

Description restates parameters (evidence_id, file_ids, assess_unassessed) and adds the 'max 50' limit, but schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., org_id source, file_ids purpose). Minimal additional semantic value beyond summarization.

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?

Clearly states the tool queues AI assessments for multiple evidence files, specifies it's a write operation with role requirement, async, and max 50. Distinguishes from siblings like scf_trigger_evidence_assessment by explicitly targeting bulk operations.

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?

Implies usage for bulk assessment of evidence files, but does not explicitly compare with similar tools (e.g., scf_trigger_evidence_assessment) or state when not to use it. Provides role requirement but no alternative guidance.

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