evidence_collect

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

With no annotations available, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic function and omits critical details like whether it is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or triggers external actions. This lack of transparency increases the risk of unintended consequences.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence. While brevity is positive, it comes at the cost of essential information. The sentence alone could be part of a more informative description, but as the entirety, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what an evidence collection plan is, how integrations are used, what the return value looks like, or how this tool fits into a compliance workflow. An agent would be hard-pressed to use this correctly.

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 no meaning to any of the 4 parameters. Schema description coverage is only 25% (only previous_scan_id has a schema description). The input schema itself has nested objects and enumerations that cry out for explanation, but the description provides none. This forces the agent to guess parameter usage or rely on external knowledge.

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 action ('generate evidence collection plans') and the resource ('compliance controls'). It is specific about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like audit_report_generate or control_gap_analysis. Still, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 description lacks context about prerequisites, intended scenarios, or situations where this tool should be avoided. Without such guidance, an agent may misuse or overlook it.

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