Register Evidence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses important side effects: it computes a SHA-256 hash, stores metadata, and explicitly states the original file is never modified or copied. It still omits permissions, duplicate-registration behavior, and error conditions, but the core mutation and file-safety behavior are clearly conveyed.

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 three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by concise behavioral details. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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 no annotations, complete parameter descriptions, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential action and key side effects. It is nearly complete, though it could mention prerequisites such as whether the case must already exist or what happens on duplicate registration.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including case_id format, path, and evidence_type enum values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 specific verb ('Register') and resource ('a new piece of evidence in a forensic case'), making the action immediately identifiable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_evidence, list_evidence, and verify_evidence by focusing on registration of new evidence rather than retrieval or verification.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tools. It implies registration is for adding new evidence, but does not say when to prefer it over verify_evidence or how to handle existing evidence, leaving usage conditions entirely to inference.

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