attach_evidence

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

The description provides no information about behavioral aspects such as side effects (e.g., file upload persistence), authorization needs, or whether the operation is read-only or destructive. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose key behaviors.

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 a single sentence, but it is too brief and vague to be considered appropriately concise. It omits critical details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently compact.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover parameter purposes, return values, or usage constraints, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter. It only gives high-level examples of what to attach, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of 'kind', 'path', 'command', 'content', and 'exitCode'.

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: to attach evidence. It lists examples (test output, command output, notes, links) that help differentiate it from siblings like 'record_dead_end' or 'record_decision', though it could be more explicit about the storage context.

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 siblings like 'record_source' or 'record_decision'. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or alternatives, leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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