get_evidence_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says what categories are summarized but does not clarify read/write behavior, required permissions, response shape, or limitations.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is appropriately terse for a summary tool, though its brevity also reflects missing detail elsewhere.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more context. It does not explain the required 'name' argument, when to use this tool, or what the returned summary contains beyond naming three evidence categories.

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 single required parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. The description does not explain what 'name' identifies, leaving the parameter semantically empty.

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?

States a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('evidence'), and names the three evidence categories it covers. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as get_unresolved or get_source_evidence, so it is clear but not fully self-routing.

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 never states when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling alternatives exist. The agent gets no explicit selection guidance.

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