ewp_evidence_view_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Load' implies a read-only retrieval, but the description does not state whether the operation is safe, what it returns, whether it errors if the view is missing, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It communicates the essential resource and lookup key efficiently.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what gets returned or what distinguishes this from sibling tools. It only says that a stored EvidenceView is loaded, leaving the agent without enough information about invocation success, return value, or when to use it. The absence of annotations makes this gap more significant.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of explanations. It does clarify that proposition_id is the key used for loading, but it leaves view_id entirely unexplained, including when it should be supplied and how it relates to proposition_id.

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 verb ('Load') and resource ('a stored EvidenceView'), and it specifies the lookup key ('by proposition_id'). It is reasonably specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool ewp_evidence_view_put, leaving some differentiation to be inferred from the name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ewp_evidence_view_put or ewp_evidence_record. It does not mention preconditions, exclusions, or any decision criteria an agent could use to choose it.

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