add_evidence_to_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that evidence is added, but doesn't disclose side effects (append vs. replace), required existence of the report, error handling, or permissions. This is minimal for a mutation 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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resources. No unnecessary words.

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 a simple tool with fully documented schema (4/4 params described) and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It establishes purpose and the report existence constraint. Missing behavioral details are covered by the transparency score, so this dimension remains adequate.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful detail beyond paraphrasing the evidence types already in the enum. It doesn't clarify format constraints or relationships between parameters.

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 'Add' with a clear resource 'evidence' and target 'existing report'. It lists the types of evidence (screenshots, requests, responses, PoC code), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_vulnerability_report.

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 phrase 'existing report' clearly indicates this tool is for modifying an existing report, not creating one. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context is clear and would guide selection away from creation tools.

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