get_statetree_evaluators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it's a read ('get') but does not mention permissions, error conditions (e.g., invalid asset_path), or whether the operation is safe. The description is minimally transparent.

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 concise (two sentences plus args list), front-loads the purpose, and every sentence provides value. No unnecessary words.

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 description defines inputs and purpose, it lacks usage context such as typical scenarios or how the returned data is structured. The existence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description alone is not fully informative for a tool with many siblings.

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 description adds significant meaning to both parameters beyond the schema: 'asset_path: Content path to the StateTree asset' and 'filter: Optional substring filter on evaluator class name'. With 0% schema coverage, this fully compensates and clarifies parameter purpose.

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 it retrieves 'all global evaluators' from a StateTree asset, specifying the verb (get) and the resource (global evaluators). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_statetree_evaluator (adds) and get_statetree_global_tasks (different entity type).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_statetree_states or get_statetree_global_tasks. It lacks explicit context for selection, e.g., prerequisites or when not to use it.

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