evaluate_rag_end_to_end

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether results are persisted. The output_dir parameter suggests potential file writes but is unmentioned.

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 clear sentences cover the core actions and output. No redundant information. Front-loaded with process then outputs.

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?

High-level process and output are described, but given 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, more detail on configuration and return format would be needed for full completeness.

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 only 14%, with only models having a description. The description adds no parameter-level details, leaving 6 of 7 parameters unexplained. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 runs the full RAG pipeline, including retrieval, generation, and scoring with specific judges. It distinguishes itself from siblings like evaluate_retrieval by explicitly mentioning the end-to-end process and named judges.

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 implies usage for end-to-end evaluation but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like evaluate_retrieval. No when-not or conditions are given.

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