evidence_highlight

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what exact format the returned content has, or any limitations (e.g., only works for certain evidence types).

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 is concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose but could be slightly improved by clarifying what 'highlighted content' entails without adding unnecessary length.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context for basic understanding. However, because no output schema exists, the description should ideally describe the structure or format of the returned content to ensure completeness.

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?

The input schema includes one parameter (evidence_id) with a description of '证据 ID'. The tool description mentions '单篇证据', which aligns with the parameter meaning. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already 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 tool's function: returning the highlighted original text referenced by a single piece of evidence. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes well from siblings like evidence_summary and create_evidence_by_pdf.

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 context (when needing highlighted content for an evidence) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as evidence_summary or all_evidence_summary. No exclusions 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.