ifcx_evaluate_lens

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'evaluate' implies a non-destructive read operation, but it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention any required permissions, side effects, or return behavior.

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, which is concise, but it lacks structure (no sections, no front-loading of key information). It is too brief to be considered well-structured, though it earns points for brevity.

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 the complexity of the nested 'lens' parameter and the lack of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return value, error conditions, performance implications, or how the evaluation result is provided.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no information about any parameter. 'sessionId', 'stackId', and the complex 'lens' object remain unexplained, leaving the agent without understanding what values are valid or how they affect the operation.

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 verb 'evaluate' with a specific resource 'lens rules' against 'a session or federated stage', making the purpose clear. However, among many sibling tools, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar query operations like ifcx_query_nodes or ifcx_set_visibility.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Without context, an AI agent cannot determine if this is the correct tool for a given scenario.

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