scf_get_evidence_upgrade_recommendations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return content but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or side effects. The verb 'get' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly confirm.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and return content without any unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given two parameters with good descriptions and no output schema, the description provides a clear idea of what is returned (target level, effort, impact, step-by-step actions). It is sufficiently complete for a simple retrieval tool, though it could mention if there are any limitations or pagination.

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 100%, and the description adds value by telling the agent where to obtain the parameter values: 'obtain from scf_list_organizations' for org_id and 'obtain from scf_list_evidence' for evidence_id. This goes beyond the schema and aids correct invocation.

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 verb and resource: 'get upgrade-path recommendations' for 'one evidence item's collection'. It also lists the return fields: target level, effort, impact, step-by-step actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scf_get_evidence_maturity or scf_get_evidence_suggestions.

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: 'the same guidance shown in the platform UI' suggests standard retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like scf_get_evidence_maturity, nor does it provide when-not guidance. Context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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