evaluate_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (errors, delta, confidence) and the scoping behavior of confidence. It implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., whether the session state is modified), which would make it a 5.

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 highly concise: two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence defines purpose and outputs; the second gives usage guidance. Every word contributes value.

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 no output schema, the description reasonably covers return values but omits details like types, error scenarios, and default behaviors (e.g., default scope or timeout). It is adequate for a straightforward evaluation tool but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only partially covers 'scope' by linking it to confidence levels. 'session_id' is self-explanatory, but 'timeout_ms' is not mentioned at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema structure.

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's core function: evaluating a simulation session by comparing diagnostics against baselines. It lists specific outputs (errors introduced, errors resolved, net delta, confidence) and positions it relative to sibling tools (e.g., simulate_edit, commit). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly advises 'Use after simulate_edit to assess impact before committing', providing a precise workflow context. This differentiates it from simulators and commit tools, giving strong when-to-use guidance. The mention of confidence levels ('high for file scope, eventual for workspace') further aids decision-making.

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