build_community_evidence_pack

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full burden. It states 'write to evidence pack' indicating mutation, but does not specify whether it appends or overwrites, how top entities are selected, or what happens if no mentions exist. The return information is partially redundant given the output schema.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured Args section. It is reasonably concise, though the Args block could be slightly more compact. Overall, it is well-organized 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?

The description covers the main input parameters, the sampling process, and the returned information. However, it omits details on how 'top entities' are determined and does not clarify the chunking or writing behavior. Given the output schema exists, the return section is less critical.

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 Args section adds meaningful descriptions for all three parameters (comm_id, max_chunks, per_doc_limit) beyond the bare schema, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It explains what each parameter does in the context of the tool.

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 (build), the resource (community evidence pack), and the source (sampling chunks from mentions of community top entities). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_evidence_pack and build_section_evidence_pack_v1 by specifying 'community'.

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 its alternatives (e.g., build_evidence_pack, build_section_evidence_pack_v1). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or cases where the tool should not be used.

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