testpass_evidence

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It says it fetches an item and its 'attached evidence' but never says what evidence consists of, what happens if both item_id and check_id are supplied, whether the operation is read-only, or how missing/partial results behave. For a fetch tool with zero structured backing, this is a substantial gap.

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 tight sentences, purpose front-loaded with the selectors immediately following. No wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does enough to identify the tool and its selectors but omits the shape of the returned evidence and the behavior when both optional selectors are provided. Adequate but with clear gaps for a multi-param fetch tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents run_id, item_id, and check_id. The description echoes the 'item_id or check_id' selection but adds no precedence rule or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Fetch one TestPass item and its attached evidence') and names the selectors (item_id or check_id). It is broadly distinguishable from testpass_run, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like testpass_edit_item.

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?

Provides an implied context ('when a chat agent needs proof for a specific checklist item') but names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance. Usage is inferrable rather than explicit.

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