get_evidence

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context about resolving IDs within a workspace, but does not disclose potential edge cases, return behavior, or effects of the global_scope parameter. It does not contradict the annotation.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the core purpose. There is no filler or redundant information, and the key terms ('opaque', 'requested workspace') are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description leaves room for ambiguity about what 'resolve' returns and how errors are handled. It also does not address the global_scope option's effect on behavior. The tool is simple enough that the description is adequate but 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 67%, and the description aligns with the evidence_ids and workspace parameters by mentioning 'evidence IDs' and 'requested workspace'. The global_scope parameter is left to the schema, which adequately describes it. The description adds some context but does not fully compensate for the missing parameter-level explanations.

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's action: resolving opaque evidence IDs within a specified workspace. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the listed sibling tools, which involve status, indexing, history, and pin management.

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 usage when opaque evidence IDs need to be resolved inside a workspace, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any preconditions or exclusions. The context is clear enough for basic selection but lacks explicit guidance.

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