collect_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only search operation but does not explicitly state safety or side effects. It also omits details like authentication or rate limits.

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 concise and structured with clear sections (title, args, returns). It avoids unnecessary details, though the args section largely mirrors the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It mentions aggregated evidence by document but lacks information on pagination, error handling, or result ordering.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to all three parameters: topic (search topic), section_focus (with example), and k (result count). It provides functional context beyond the schema types.

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's purpose: collecting literature evidence for a specific topic, with optional section focus. The verb 'collect' and resource 'evidence' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like build_evidence_pack or search tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_hybrid or build_evidence_pack). The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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