optimization.list_evaluators

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload fields and a redaction guarantee ('Internal paths and environment variables are never returned'), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, empty-result behavior, or permissions required to see administrator-registered evaluators.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by one compact enumeration of returned fields. Efficient and free of filler; only the odd indentation and a slight redundancy with the output schema cost it a point.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the return-value enumeration is a bonus rather than a necessity. However, the description leaves the entire input surface unexplained and omits how the listed evaluator IDs are consumed downstream, which is a real gap for a discovery tool.

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 0% and both parameters are undocumented in the schema, yet the description never mentions 'limit' or 'query' at all. With two undocumented parameters, the description should have explained filtering and pagination semantics but does not.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List administrator-registered evaluators') plus a scope qualifier ('their readiness'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_runs, solve, and compare_results, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_runs or get_result, no mention of prerequisites (admin role?), and no statement that returned IDs feed into solve/validate. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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