Run sealed holdout evaluation

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by noting that only aggregate metrics are returned. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about the tool's output nature.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. Every word adds value, making the description efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Provides essential information about return type but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., candidate must be frozen) and what 'sealed holdout' entails. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.

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 tool description does not explain the two parameters (datasetId and candidateId). 'Frozen candidate' implies candidateId is required, but datasetId remains undocumented.

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?

Description clearly states the tool evaluates a frozen candidate on the sealed holdout, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'run_development_eval' by focusing on holdout evaluation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage after freezing a candidate, but does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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