scf_get_evidence_validation_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It explains what is returned but does not mention permissions, data freshness, rate limits, or that this is a read-only operation. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, which is acceptable.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the returned metrics. No redundant information or unnecessary words.

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 aggregate tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It tells what the tool returns and the required input. However, it could specify whether metrics are for all time or a default period, but this is a minor gap.

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%, with org_id already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing returned metrics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation sufficiently.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'aggregate evidence validation metrics', and the context 'for the organization dashboard'. It lists the specific metrics returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scf_get_evidence_validation which likely returns per-file details.

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 dashboard-level summaries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scf_get_evidence_validation or scf_get_evidence_assessment_summary. No 'when not to use' or alternative names are provided.

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