get_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling, return format, or authorization requirements. It is average for a simple read tool.

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 that begins with the action verb and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, resource, and key parameter. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. The phrase 'from a previous research session' provides useful context for when the tool is applicable. While return value is not explicitly described, 'retrieve' implies the item is returned, making the description adequate for this low-complexity tool.

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 one required parameter, evidence_id, with no description. The description mentions 'by evidence ID,' which maps the parameter's purpose but essentially restates the field name. It does not add details about formats, constraints, or how to obtain the ID, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'one evidence item' with a selection criterion (evidence ID). It also places the action in the context of 'a previous research session,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'research' or 'compare_notebooks.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely notes the context 'from a previous research session,' but does not explain when this tool is preferred over siblings or mention any exclusions.

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