Run an evalsmith suite

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavior beyond that: execution is confined to files inside the workspace root, the judge flag causes a call to the configured model, and a gate-evaluation phase runs after the metrics. It does not say what happens when a gate fails (error vs. report with failing status), which is the one behavioral detail an agent would want.

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 action and its component checks, then usage, then execution constraints. The first sentence is long and packs a lot, and the file-reading constraint is stated twice in slightly different words (files the suite points at / files only inside workspace root), but there is no filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies what structured fields cannot: the workspace-root containment rule, the external model reach when judge is on, and the gate phase. Missing only the failure semantics of unmet gates.

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 100%, with per-parameter descriptions covering gates overrides, judge, config path and format, so the description is not required to re-explain them. It only reinforces that the suite is read "from the files the suite points at" and that gates run at the end. Baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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 (run an evalsmith.yaml suite) and enumerates exactly what it composes: retrieval metrics, config comparison, tool-call checks, prompt regression, then gates. That enumeration maps onto the sibling tools (evaluate_retrieval, compare_configs, check_tool_calls, detect_prompt_regression) and makes clear this is the bundled all-in-one runner rather than any single check.

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?

"Use it when the data lives in files rather than in the conversation" gives a concrete selection rule against the conversation-oriented siblings, and "the same as `evalsmith run` in CI" anchors the use case. It does not explicitly name the individual check tools as alternatives for single-metric runs, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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