get_evaluation_try

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it discloses real behavioral traits: tries expire after an hour (TTL), an EXPIRED state exists, and it may return 'an error message'. It doesn't cover auth or idempotency, but the lifecycle and failure semantics are genuinely useful beyond structured fields.

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 core purpose and expiration behavior, then the params. The Sphinx-style :param:/:returns: tags are slightly redundant with the prose but compact and scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return ('The try report, or an error message'), and both required params are covered. For a two-param read tool this is essentially complete, with only auth/prerequisite detail missing.

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 compensate, and it documents both parameters. Critically, it explains that try_id originates from try_evaluator, adding meaning the bare string-typed schema does not convey.

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 ('Reads') and resource ('an ad-hoc try'), and ties it directly to the sibling try_evaluator that produced the try. An agent can distinguish it from try_evaluator (which initiates) without opening either schema.

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 establishes the workflow: try_id comes 'from try_evaluator', so this is the retrieval step after a try is handed back. It also gives a concrete remedy on EXPIRED (re-run try_evaluator). It lacks an explicit 'do not use this to start a try' exclusion, but the context is clear.

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