show_evaluation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description only restates the purpose without behavioral context.

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 one sentence of 15 words, which is efficient for a simple retrieval tool. However, it could be slightly expanded to include context like what the response contains, but it is not wasteful.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description lists some return fields (status, scores, metrics, comparison data) but does not mention error cases, access limitations, or the response format. It is adequate but incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'evaluation_id' described as 'Evaluation ID (UUID)'. The description does not add any additional meaning or format beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific evaluation', and lists what details are included: 'status, scores, metrics, and comparison data'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_evaluations' (which lists all evaluations) and 'evaluation_status' (which likely only returns status).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'evaluation_status' for just status, or 'list_evaluations' for an overview. No 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' information is given.

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