get_task_evaluations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the emptiness precondition tied to evaluate_task and the inclusion of every kept re-evaluation version, which shapes what an agent should expect back.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and payload, then the emptiness caveat, then sibling routing — an effective order with little waste. Minor redundancy: 'Never affects the task's own state' and 'Read-only' restate the same idea already carried by annotations.

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?

For a read tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, preconditions, and alternatives adequately. The remaining details (pagination, exact report shape) are handled by the output schema, though the emptiness condition could be stated more precisely.

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%, and the schema itself explains role filtering, the task_id default to the current workstream task, and project_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: reads the task's Evaluation Engine reports, and enumerates the payload (quality_score, task_status, disagreements) plus kept re-evaluation versions. It is clearly distinguishable from evaluate_task, which creates those reports.

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 routes the agent: use evaluate_task to create reports, get_agent_reliability for cross-project track records, and notes the tool returns empty unless evaluate_task was called. Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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