evidence_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read' aligns with that. The description adds the point-lookup nature ('exact record by ID') but doesn't describe return behavior or error cases. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff, front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations, the description covers what, when, and the parameter. It doesn't mention return value or error handling, but the output schema is absent and the tool is simple, so the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, but the description's 'by ID' implies the single parameter's purpose. It adds some meaning beyond the schema (that evidenceId is the record's identifier), though it could be more explicit. For a single self-named parameter, this is adequate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('evidence record'), and scope ('by ID'), distinguishing it from list tools like evidence_list. The added context 'after handoffs/reviews' further clarifies its role.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use it ('after handoffs/reviews') and an alternative action ('instead of inlining large diffs or logs'), though it doesn't name sibling tool alternatives like evidence_list. This is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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