get_evidence

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a prerequisite ('handed off to you') but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or what the caller should expect in return. This is minimal insight for a retrieval tool.

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, direct sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. The leading role indicator '[ANALYST/BUILDER/REVIEWER]' is somewhat cryptic and does not clearly earn its place, but it does not significantly detract from the overall conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values, side effects, or how this fits into the workflow. It only says 'Get evidence' without clarifying what the caller receives or whether this consumes evidence. This is insufficient for an evidence-handling tool within a complex governance context.

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 schema description for task_id is simply 'Task ID', which is not informative. The tool description does not explain the role of task_id or how it relates to the evidence handoff, so it adds no meaning beyond the already minimal schema. Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema itself is too weak to serve as a solid baseline.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('evidence') with a qualifier ('handed off to you'), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like review_evidence and handoff_evidence, though it doesn't fully elaborate on how it differs from other evidence retrieval tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The qualifier 'that was handed off to you' implies a prerequisite but does not compare with siblings such as review_evidence, list_tasks, or is_evidence_fresh, leaving the agent without enough context to choose among them.

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