wisdom_get_evidence_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Find' and 'Returns weighted scores' suggest a read-only query and disclose the output type, but the description does not explain how evidence is gathered, whether the operation has side effects, or what the weighted scores actually represent in more detail.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, names the resource, and briefly states the return characteristic ('weighted scores'), making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool is simple with only one parameter, but the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should clarify the return shape. 'Returns weighted scores' is somewhat vague and does not explain the structure, edge cases, or limitations of the evidence search, leaving room for agent uncertainty.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter, fragment_id, described as 'UUID of the thesis fragment to analyze.' The description's phrase 'for a thesis fragment' adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Find all supporting and contradicting evidence for a thesis fragment.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like wisdom_get_fragment, wisdom_search_fragments, and wisdom_find_contradictions by focusing specifically on evidence balance.

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 its use case well enough, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisite conditions. It relies on the agent inferring that this is the right tool for evidence-balance queries.

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