scf_list_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns tracking status, maturity level, and linked controls, implying a read operation. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or whether it returns only active items. More behavioral details would be beneficial.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing returned fields. However, it lacks information on pagination, sorting, or default behavior. Among many sibling evidence list tools, it does not help the agent choose correctly.

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% with good parameter descriptions already in the schema. The description adds context about the overall return values but does not add new semantics specific to the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 'list', the resource 'evidence items', and the context 'tracked against an organization's controls'. It also specifies what is returned (tracking status, maturity level, linked controls). However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like 'scf_list_evidence_catalog' or 'scf_list_evidence_gaps'.

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 mentions optional filtering by system, giving a specific use case. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing evidence gaps or files). No explicit when-not or sibling comparisons.

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