get_evidence_quality_rubric

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval, and the description adds context about the returned content ('accepted support/refute/neutral labels', 'deterministic evidence quality levels'). However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, auth requirements, or return format, leaving moderate ambiguity.

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 well-organized with a short summary, an 'AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS' section, and a workflow-position note. Every line adds decision-relevant information, and the formatting makes it easy for an agent to scan.

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 parameterless lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the artifact, explains its contents, gives explicit trigger conditions, and states workflow position. Nothing critical is missing for an agent deciding to call this tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds useful context about the returned rubric even though no parameters are involved.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('Phase 6 Co-Scientist evidence labels and quality rubric'). It clearly identifies the artifact being retrieved and distinguishes this lookup tool from mutation or search siblings by focusing on the rubric/criteria artifact.

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 explicitly lists automatic trigger conditions and positions the tool in a workflow: 'Use before writing hypothesis evidence or verification reports that will be promoted to verification.' This gives an agent clear, actionable guidance on when to invoke it.

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