store_evidence_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Store' without addressing permissions, reversibility, what the response looks like, or how the evidence is integrated. The added context about grounding assertions is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds important context about the role of evidence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 five parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain parameter semantics, behavior on failure, or any side effects. For a tool with this complexity, more context is needed to guide correct invocation.

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. It gives examples of evidence kinds ('test result, mutation result') but does not explain any of the five parameters (projectId, evidenceId, citation, kind, reliability). Parameters remain opaque, so the description adds minimal value over the raw 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Store') and clearly identifies the resource ('evidence') and destination ('synthesis theory'). It distinguishes from siblings like add_assertion_tool by focusing on evidence storage rather than assertions.

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 phrase 'Evidence is required to ground assertions' gives clear context for when this tool should be used—whenever evidence needs to be recorded to support assertions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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