rt_get_evaluations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure responsibility. It reveals the output ordering (newest last), flattening behavior, and critically warns that reviewer attribution is unreliable due to API token ownership, advising to rely on the note field. This goes beyond a simple read operation and provides valuable 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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, then adds critical usage warnings in subsequent blocks. It is somewhat verbose with repeated advice about duplication and syncing, but each sentence provides actionable information. The structure is organized and not unnecessarily padded.

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 list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned, ordering, and key caveats. It also includes practical usage guidance. The lack of pagination or limit details is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 describes offerId but leaves candidateId without a description (50% coverage). The tool description mentions 'candidate' but does not elaborate on parameter semantics or constraints. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema; candidateId is implied as the key but not explicitly explained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 retrieves all evaluations for a candidate, listing specific fields (rating, note, stage, reviewer, date) and the output format (flattened list, newest last). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like rt_get_notes (notes only) and rt_submit_evaluation (writing).

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 explicitly instructs users to read this before writing an evaluation, implying it should be used before rt_submit_evaluation to avoid duplication. It also advises carrying the evaluation ID when syncing to prevent duplicates. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context clearly indicates when to use this tool.

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