medeval_start_evaluation

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

All annotations are false, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the authorization prerequisite, which is an invocation condition, not a behavioral trait such as side effects, the nature of the started process, or its non-idempotency. It does not contradict the annotations but adds minimal behavioral context.

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 one short sentence, which is concise in length but not effective in structure because it conveys almost no functional information. It front-loads the authorization condition but fails to structure the tool's purpose or any usage details. The brevity is not a substitute for the missing substance.

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 a tool with 12 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no helpful annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the evaluation does, what the parameters mean, or what the output will be, even though an output schema exists. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool with only this description.

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 schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanatory text for any of them. Parameters like 'evidence', 'indication', 'alternatives', and 'device_name' are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding beyond raw field names. This is a severe compensation failure.

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 states a clear action ('Start evaluation') and a condition ('only after explicit authorization'), giving the core purpose. However, it is vague about what 'evaluation' entails and does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'medeval_start_generation', so an agent might confuse the two. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity beyond the generic start action.

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 a single usage prerequisite—explicit authorization—which is a valid when-to-use condition. Yet it offers no guidance on when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives like 'medeval_start_generation' or any context for choosing this over other start-related siblings. This leaves the agent without enough decision support.

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