list_project_science_evidence

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful boundaries by listing what the ledger does and does not verify (e.g., 'does not prove artifact contents, model quality, causality...'), which helps an agent avoid over-interpreting the evidence.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by useful boundary caveats. It is slightly abstract—terms like 'durable hypothesis-to-policy scientific context' and 'predecessor shape' are jargon-heavy—but it earns its place with minimal 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?

For a simple 2-parameter listing tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. However, it does not explain what the caller receives or how to interpret the 'science evidence' list, and the boundary language, while useful, is not enough to fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the description provides no parameter-level detail. The 'limit' parameter has a default and type in the schema, and 'project_id' is required, so the schema carries the burden; the description adds no semantic meaning to either parameter, leaving a gap but not a contradiction.

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 opens with 'Read the project's durable hypothesis-to-policy scientific context,' which provides a specific verb and resource. It does not however explain how 'science evidence' maps to 'hypothesis-to-policy scientific context' or how it differs from related sibling tools like list_project_learning_runs or list_project_policy_assignments.

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 a read-only listing use case but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. The negative assertion about what it does not prove hints at boundaries, but there are no explicit alternative tool names or conditions.

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