evaluate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: git_range marks findings in_scope while scores still cover the whole target, and partial dimension selection produces an incomplete verdict. It omits any statement of read-only/safety profile or cost, which keeps it short of 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then two tightly focused sentences on parameter behavior; no filler. The trailing clause 'the verdict is incomplete' is slightly clipped but still informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still names findings, scores, hotspots and verdict. Combined with the parameter-effect notes, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the absence of any annotation-level safety context leaves a small gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: git_range gets a concrete format example ('main..HEAD') and its in_scope effect, and dimensions gets its scoring consequence explained. Only path is left self-evident rather than documented.

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 ('Evaluate a file or directory') plus the object of evaluation ('the deterministic quality bar'). It clearly reads as the primary analysis action among siblings explain_rule and list_analyzers, but never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 gives real operational guidance: git_range scopes findings to touched lines, and restricting dimensions leaves the rest unscored. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus explain_rule or list_analyzers, so the usage boundary is implied rather than declared.

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