evidence_seal

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint true and readOnlyHint false; description adds async behavior details (returns immediately, state transitions OPEN→CLOSING→CLOSED). No contradiction with annotations. Could mention data loss or locking, but sufficient for context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then guidance. No wasted words. Information-dense and well-structured.

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 13 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on required inputs, return format, error cases, and the exact meaning of parameters. The polling instruction is helpful but insufficient to fully understand correct usage.

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 has 13 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter meanings, required fields (caseFileId, id, evidencesCount), or the purpose of nested attestation object. This is a critical gap.

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 seals and certifies an evidence group, closes it to new additions, and triggers async timestamping. It distinguishes from sibling tools like evidence_group_create by describing the state transitions and the need to poll before linking to a dossier.

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?

Explicit guidance to poll evidence_group_list until status is CLOSED before linking to a dossier. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like manually certifying.

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