get_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return' and does not state whether the operation is read-only, how node_id affects results, what happens when no evidence exists, or any limits on the returned data.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning by naming the resource components and scope.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description leaves important gaps: node_id is undocumented, the return shape is only hinted at, and no usage constraints are given. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is not fully complete for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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%, and the description only adds general 'session' context. It does not explain the optional node_id parameter, its relationship to session_id, or the meaning of null defaults, so the agent cannot infer parameter semantics beyond their names.

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 identifies the resource ('grounding report metadata, claims and sources') and the scope ('for a session') with a specific retrieval verb, 'Return.' It does not explicitly contrast with sibling getters, but the unique concept of 'grounding report' distinguishes it from tools like get_session_info or get_knowledge_nodes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling retrieval tools such as get_teaching_context, get_knowledge_nodes, or get_review_state. The only implied context is that it is session-related, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are provided.

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