ouroboros_evaluate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the three-stage process and the consensus trigger, which is meaningful about how the tool behaves. However, it stops short of stating whether the operation is read-only or what side effects or return format to expect, preventing a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and each sentence earns its place by explaining one stage of the pipeline. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description is thorough about the evaluation process but omits what the tool returns or how to interpret the output. With no output schema present, this is a notable gap. The rich parameter descriptions compensate for some context, but the main description alone is not fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to because every parameter is already well documented. The pipeline overview subtly relates to trigger_consensus but adds no new semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') with a clear resource ('an Ouroboros execution session') and adds a concrete three-stage pipeline. It distinguishes this as the evaluation tool among many ouroboros sibling tools by describing the exact stages, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for evaluating execution sessions but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like ouroboros_start_evaluate or ouroboros_qa. The stage-level detail provides context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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