get_skill_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output structure (evidence sources and strength levels) but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or potential edge cases. The verb 'Get' implies a safe operation, but that is not explicitly stated, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, then succinctly describes the output, and finally lists the argument and return format. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundant text.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. It adequately covers purpose, parameter semantics, and high-level output (including the enum values). Missing are potential error conditions or behavior when the student is not found, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.

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 schema only defines student_id as a string with title 'Student Id' and 0% coverage. The description compensates by specifying 'student_id: The student's UUID,' adding the crucial format detail. This fully clarifies the parameter's meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'Get the evidence map for a student's skills.' It specifies the resource (student skills) and the output (evidence map with sources and strength levels). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skill_distribution or analyze_resume, which address different aspects.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools. The context implies a read-only lookup, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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