Review Evidence Packet

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds the useful [OPERATOR] role constraint and clarifies that the action produces a verdict, which the annotations don't express. It does not describe side effects of approve/rework/reject or what happens on repeat calls.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the [OPERATOR] qualifier is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is arguably terse to the point of under-specifying an important mutation action.

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 schema fully documents all parameters and annotations cover the safety profile, so an agent can technically call it correctly. However, for a 7-parameter state-changing decision tool with no output schema, the description omits what a review entails, the consequences of each verdict, and role prerequisites beyond the tag.

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%, so all seven parameters (including the score bounds and verdict enum) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or threshold-meaning detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (review) and resource (evidence packet) plus the concrete actions taken (score, approve/rework/reject). This distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_evidence or classify_evidence_quality, though it does not name any alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_evidence or classify_evidence_quality. The [OPERATOR] tag implies a role restriction, which is a hint, but the description never states the conditions that should lead an agent to select this tool over its siblings.

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