schema_evaluate_tool

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions file writing (evaluation_report.json, verdict.md) and auto-discovery of EXPLAIN outputs, adding value. However, it omits potential side effects (overwriting files) and safety profile (non-destructive? permissions?), leaving gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main action, second adding key conditional. No redundant words; every sentence adds meaning.

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?

Description covers core functionality and a conditional behavior, but lacks details on output contents, role of each parameter, and differentiation from sibling tools. Given output schema exists, some gaps are acceptable, but not fully compensated.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It partially explains query_profile_names (triggering discovery), but other params (schema_entity_id, root_dir, artifacts_dir) are not described beyond their names and defaults, providing minimal added value.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Build verdict' and resources (schema metadata, EXPLAIN outputs) producing two files. It distinguishes from siblings like schema_explain_tool by focusing on verdict generation, though not explicitly differentiating.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., schema_evaluate_full_tool). Description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving agent to infer usage.

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