edgegate_list_eval_sets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the resource and returned fields, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., pagination, ordering, or error behavior), leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and output; the second provides actionable usage. 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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns and how to use the results. It lacks details like pagination or error conditions, but these are not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain workspace_id beyond the context of 'the workspace's'. The parameter is self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, but the description adds minimal additional semantic value over the schema's type/format.

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 action ('List the workspace's behavioral eval sets') with a specific verb and resource, and it enumerates the returned fields (eval_set_id, name, latest version, creation date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edgegate_list_eval_packs by specifying 'behavioral eval sets'.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use the eval_set_id with the update / publish / new-version tools.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (to obtain IDs for subsequent operations). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives for other resource types, but the context is clear enough.

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