nightmare_evaluate_probe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or any other behavioral traits. It merely says 'evaluate' and 'return', implying a non-destructive action, but this is not explicit. There's no statement about safety, reversibility, or limitations, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and outcome. It is concise with zero wasted words. However, given the complexity of the tool (three opaque object parameters, no schema coverage), the description could be longer and still remain efficient. But as written, it is structurally clean and direct.

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?

This tool has nested object parameters with zero schema coverage and no annotations or output schema. The description provides only a high-level purpose but omits essential details: what each parameter should contain, how 'target and control observations' map to the params, what the verdict format is, or any error/edge-case behavior. An agent would be unable to correctly construct inputs or interpret results, making the description severely 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 description coverage is 0% – none of the three parameters (hypothesis, plan, result) have any textual documentation. The description only hints at 'hypothesis' and 'observations' but does not explain the roles of 'plan' and 'result', nor the expected structure of the objects. The agent is left without any semantic guidance beyond parameter names, and the description does nothing to compensate for the schema's silence.

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 states a specific verb ('evaluate') and resource ('target and control observations against a hypothesis') and specifies the outcome ('falsification/specificity verdict'). This clearly conveys what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings (nightmare_generate, nightmare_compile_probe), but the 'probe' in the name and the evaluation focus distinguish it well enough. It could be improved by naming alternatives, so not a perfect 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It doesn't state prerequisites, context, or any conditions that would select this tool over alternatives. The intended workflow is left entirely to inference, providing no explicit usage context.

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