review_evidence

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It implies a state-changing review process (approve/rework/reject) but does not state whether the action is final, reversible, or requires specific permissions. It also does not mention return values or side effects, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 and front-loaded, stating the main action in a single short sentence and listing the verdict options in a fragment. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and to the point.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the main action and verdict options. It does not explain the review workflow, what happens after a verdict (e.g., status updates, rework process), how threshold is used, or what the return value looks like. This is a significant gap for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, including score, verdict, task_id, packet_id, rationale, issues, and threshold. The description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Review an evidence packet. Score it and approve, rework, or reject.' It specifies the verb (review, score) and the resource (evidence packet), as well as the possible decision outcomes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like classify_evidence_quality or evaluate_threshold, so it falls short of a 5.

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 or any prerequisites. It does not mention related tools or scenarios, such as whether to use this after submission or before handoff. The usage is only implied by the action description.

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