detect_helix_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is 'Detect' and discusses parameter effects (e.g., skipping source-level checks if libraryRoot omitted), but it does not disclose safety profile (non-destructive), error conditions, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, inputs, output, and usage context. No extraneous information, and key details are front-loaded.

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 (detecting evidence from multiple sources) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main behavior, inputs, and intended use. It could benefit from more detail about the return structure, but the provided context is sufficient for most use cases.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as explaining that omitting libraryRoot skips source-level checks and specifying the default for libraryId. This additional information enhances understanding.

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 ('Detect helix-native AAA evidence'), the resource ('for a single tagName'), and the output ('Returns the raw HelixAaaEvidence object'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact type of evidence and context (helixMeta in CEM, aaa-verdicts.json, etc.), which is unique among the many sibling tools.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool ('for a single tagName') and its utility ('useful for surfacing the same evidence helixir scores against (Storybook a11y card, readiness pipeline)'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving room for improvement.

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