gavaza_evidence_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the file is 'hashed' and stored as a 'local copy', which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, requires permissions, or what happens to the checklist item, leaving some ambiguity 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and an important behavioral detail ('hashed, local copy') efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple (3 params, no nested objects), and an output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more details about the note parameter and usage context. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves gaps in parameter semantics and guidelines.

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 indirectly explains 'file' (the evidence file) and 'item_id' (checklist item) through the phrase 'attach an evidence file to a checklist item', but it does not explain the 'note' parameter, which remains undocumented. The hashing/local copy detail adds meaning for the file parameter.

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 'attach' and resource 'evidence file to a checklist item', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gavaza_evidence_list and gavaza_evidence_remove. It also adds context with 'hashed, local copy', but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage through the action word 'attach', but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with siblings such as gavaza_evidence_list or gavaza_evidence_remove.

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