enzo_observe

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context: deterministic evidence is authoritative, and semantic-only questions are routed to Pydantic AI's TypeSafe/Jev provider when the API key is present. However, it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires specific authorization, or what happens when the API key is missing, leaving notable 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?

The description is two compact sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with the core purpose, the second sentence adds a useful behavioral condition. It loses one point only because the jargon-laden first sentence is not expanded for clarity.

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 ObserveRequest schema and the absence of annotations, this description is too thin. It does not explain key concepts like 'admitted atomic claim', the evidence kinds, the semantics of constraints fields, or whether the tool returns a judgment or mutates state. While an output schema exists, proper use still requires more contextual guidance.

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, but it does very little. It hints at the 'deterministic' flag and maybe 'allow_external_jev', but does not explain how to construct the ObserveRequest, what 'evidence' versus 'missing_information' means, or how constraints are used. The rich schema remains largely unexplained.

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 specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('typed evidence for one admitted atomic claim'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools enzo_atomize and enzo_state. However, 'admitted atomic claim' is domain jargon that may be unclear without additional context, so it misses the top score.

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 implies the tool is used when there is typed evidence for an atomic claim, and it notes a conditional (TYPESAFE_API_KEY configured) for semantic-only questions. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus enzo_atomize or enzo_state, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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