evidence_get_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The word 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, but the description does not mention error behavior, permission requirements, or what happens if the requested evidence does not exist. This is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but not rich.

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 or redundant wording. Every word contributes to identifying the action and the result, making it appropriately concise for a simple read tool.

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 one-parameter read operation with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description and schema together provide enough to invoke the tool correctly. It falls slightly short of 5 because it offers no behavioral or alternative-routing context, though that is less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, with the 'evidence' parameter described as 'Evidence name'. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that properties belong to an evidence. It does not clarify whether evidence refers to a record type, a specific record, or a naming convention.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource retrieved ('list of properties (fields) supported by an evidence'). This distinguishes it from sibling evidence tools like evidence_get_sum, evidence_get_labels, and evidence_get_record_changes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling evidence_get_* tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The only usage signal is the generic 'get properties' wording, which is implied rather than stated.

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