scf_get_evidence_validation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Get') and lists output fields, but fails to mention idempotency, caching, permissions, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the key data returned. No extraneous details, well front-loaded.

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 read operation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the returned data. It covers all key fields. Could mention error conditions or performance considerations, but overall 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?

Schema coverage is 100%; each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the field types. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves validation results for a single evidence file, listing the specific fields returned (status, completeness score, rule findings, source, timestamp). The name and description differentiate it from siblings like scf_get_evidence_validation_summary, which aggregates multiple files.

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 when you have a specific file and want its validation details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like scf_get_evidence_validation_summary or scf_get_evidence_health. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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