build_evidence_pack

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions searching and saving with tunable parameters, but does not clarify whether it creates new packs or appends, any destructive side effects, or authorization requirements.

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?

Description is concise with an introductory paragraph and a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value, no unnecessary words, and front-loaded with the main action.

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 the presence of an output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return value (pack_id and entries) and the purpose. Minor gaps like whether it creates new packs or modifies existing ones, but overall sufficient.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the Args section in the description provides clear explanations for each parameter: query (search topic), k (retrieval count), per_doc_limit (max chunks per doc), alpha (vector search weight), adding significant value beyond the schema.

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 builds evidence packs by searching for relevant literature fragments and saving them for reuse. It distinguishes from siblings like build_section_evidence_pack_v1 and build_community_evidence_pack by focusing on general evidence packs.

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?

Description explains the tool can be used for iterative review writing to avoid result drift, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for specific purposes.

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