List Study Evaluations

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

The description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: 'Serving available prediction reports appends access audit events.' This goes beyond the annotations by explaining why the operation is not purely read-only. It adds useful context about side effects beyond what readOnlyHint=false already implies.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary read action. The second sentence is somewhat terse and awkwardly worded, but there is no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter list/read tool with an output schema, the core action and the audit side effect are stated, which makes the tool minimally usable. However, it lacks usage guidance and any parameter elaboration, leaving clear gaps in the context an agent needs to confidently select and invoke it.

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?

The single parameter run_id has no description in the schema, and the tool description never mentions it. While the name is fairly self-explanatory, the 0% schema description coverage means the description should compensate, and it does not clarify expected format, meaning, or scope.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read preserved quality reports and evidence hashes,' which clearly indicates a read/list operation on study evaluation artifacts. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like list_study_decisions or get_study_run, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The second sentence mentions a side effect of serving reports but does not help an agent decide when this tool is the right choice.

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