evidence_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read, non-destructive write. The description usefully adds the output artifacts and the ordering dependency on run_verification, but it does not disclose what happens on re-run (overwrite vs. append) despite idempotentHint=false, which is the key behavioral unknown for a write 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?

Two short sentences, no filler: the action and destination come first, and the prerequisite follows. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the action, artifact, location, and ordering. The one material omission is re-run/overwrite semantics, which the non-idempotent annotation implies is relevant.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No gap exists here, but the description also contributes nothing beyond that 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?

States a specific verb (Write) and a concrete resource (the evidence pack: Markdown + matrix JSON) with an explicit destination path (.reqtrace/evidence/). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_verification, coverage_report, or trace_matrix, which produce or inspect results rather than persisting an artifact.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite and sibling: 'Run run_verification first so results are current,' with the reason supplied. Usage context (for human review, after verification) is clear, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, e.g. whether it should be avoided mid-review or re-run speculatively.

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