tool_get_eval_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'full metadata' and lists components like task info and scoring results, but it doesn't cover critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, performance characteristics, or data format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by details on returns and parameters. There's no wasted text, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise. Overall, it's efficient and easy to scan.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks output details, error handling, and usage context. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain return values more thoroughly. It's adequate for basic use but has clear gaps for full agent understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds some value by explaining that 'log_file' is a 'Path to log file (absolute or relative to log_dir)' and 'log_dir' is an 'Optional log directory for relative paths.' However, it doesn't fully document both parameters—missing details like expected file formats, path validation, or examples. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this is a minimal but adequate explanation.

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 purpose: 'Get comprehensive evaluation summary including header, results, and stats.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('evaluation summary') with details about what's included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tool_get_aggregate_stats or tool_list_logs, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like tool_get_aggregate_stats or tool_search_logs, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied context is needing an evaluation log file, but this is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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