run_evaluation_suite

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 only mentions running evaluations and emitting outputs, but fails to describe side effects, destructive actions, auth requirements, or performance implications. For a tool that likely modifies state or consumes resources, this is insufficient.

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 sentence, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could benefit from a brief list of parameters or constraints without becoming verbose.

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?

Given 6 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter roles, output structure, error handling, or expected behavior after execution. An agent would likely misuse or misunderstand the 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter meanings, default values, or constraints. An agent cannot infer semantic intent for parameters like 'variant' or 'gate_path' from the name alone.

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 ('Run') and resource ('RAG/wiki agent evaluation cases'), and specifies the output formats (JSON, Markdown, telemetry). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'compare_regression' and 'decide_canary', which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description only states functionality, omitting context like when not to use it or comparison to siblings.

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