amplify_evidence_chain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It reveals that the tool surfaces commits, test runs, and confirmations, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or side-effect free.

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, each essential: first states purpose, second adds behavioral context. No wasted words.

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 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should more fully explain parameters and behavior. It omits details about the required 'id' parameter and the 'kind' enum, making it incomplete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'id' or 'kind' at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide.

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 shows the evidence chain for a stored lesson or decision, with specific verb 'show' and resource 'evidence chain'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on auditing the provenance of knowledge.

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 says 'Useful for auditing' which implies context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like amplify_verify_claim or when not to use it.

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