evidence_confidence

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

The description says 'label facts and findings', implying a write operation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, creating a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond the annotations.

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?

Single sentence but somewhat verbose with domain jargon ('Reef 10 evidence-confidence view'). Could be more concise without losing meaning.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not specify what the tool returns. It covers the labeling intent but omits details on parameter usage, side effects, or output format.

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% and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters. No value is added beyond the schema definition.

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 tool labels facts and findings with specific confidence levels, distinguishing its function as an evidence-confidence viewer. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'evidence_conflicts'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'evidence_conflicts'. The description implies usage for labeling evidence but lacks explicit context or when-not cases.

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