evaluate_retrieval

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It says 'Read-only. Runs multiple search queries internally. No side effects on the index.' It also explains the return value structure (MRR@5, Recall@5, etc.) and expected threshold. However, it does not mention potential performance impact or rate limiting, but for a quality evaluation tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then line about side effects, then parameter explanation with example, then return value description, then usage with alternatives. It is front-loaded with key info and not overly verbose.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists (context says 'Has output schema: true'), the description is complete. It explains parameter format, return metrics, and usage context. No gaps.

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% because input schema only has 'test_cases' as a string with no description inside. The description provides a detailed explanation: 'JSON string array of test cases. Each item requires "query" (search string) and "expected_filepath"...' with an example. This fully compensates for the lack of schema description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Evaluate search quality by testing whether search_knowledge() retrieves expected documents.' It specifies the verb 'evaluate' and the resource 'search quality/retrieval'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_knowledge' and 'get_index_stats' by mentioning them in the usage section.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'to audit search quality after bulk document ingestion or after tuning hybrid_alpha.' It also provides alternatives: 'Use get_index_stats() for system health checks instead. Use search_knowledge() for actual document retrieval — this tool is for quality measurement only.' This is excellent guidance.

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