scf_get_evidence_suggestions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and lists the specific outputs (current collector, capable systems, guidance). No side effects are mentioned, but the tool appears simple and non-destructive.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, scope, and outputs. No redundant or extraneous information. Could be slightly restructured for clarity, but overall concise.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know: the purpose and the three return components. It is complete given the tool's low complexity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description (org_id and evidence_id with sourcing hints). The tool description adds little beyond 'for one evidence item', but the schema already provides adequate meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'system-aware collection suggestions for one evidence item', and specifies the three types of information returned (current collector, capable systems, guidance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scf_get_evidence_upgrade_recommendations.

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 description implies usage for a single evidence item, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scf_get_evidence_upgrade_recommendations or scf_get_evidence_maturity. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are provided.

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