get_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the qualifier 'known', indicating the reference must exist, but does not disclose failure behavior or return format (though output schema covers that). It adds limited context beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys its purpose without redundant wording. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately concise for a simple lookup operation.

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 an output schema and safety annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but does not explain how this generic getter relates to specialized siblings or the broader workflow. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_run, get_artifact, etc., making it incomplete for a tool in a large sibling set.

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 50%: ref_id has a description and ref_type has an enum but no description. The description reinforces that ref_type and ref_id must be passed separately and after discovery, adding some conceptual context. However, it doesn't elaborate on each parameter beyond the schema's existing information.

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 specifies a clear verb ('resolve') and resource ('known typed reference'), along with the required parameters (ref_type and ref_id). It distinguishes itself from specialized getters by being generic, though it doesn't explicitly define 'evidence' or contrast with siblings.

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 phrase 'after discovery' implies the tool is meant for references already obtained through discovery, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this generic tool versus specialized alternatives like get_run or get_artifact, so guidance is only implied.

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