get_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It reveals a key behavior—the total character budget—but does not explain what happens when the budget is exceeded (truncation, omission, or error), nor any other side effects, ordering, or required permissions. The budget disclosure is useful but incomplete for a tool with no annotation support.

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, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and includes the distinctive budget constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the budget constraint, which is essential. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., when to prefer this over search_evidence) and does not clarify behavior under budget limits. Given no annotations and sparse schema, the description is adequate but leaves notable 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by mapping 'evidence blocks' to evidence_ids and 'total character budget' to max_chars. This clarifies the purpose of both parameters, especially max_chars, which the schema only labels generically. It does not specify units or edge-case behavior, but it significantly compensates for the bare 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('exact evidence blocks') qualified by 'by stable ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling search_evidence. It also introduces a unique constraint ('under a total character budget') that defines its scope precisely.

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 'exact evidence blocks by stable ID' implies this is for direct retrieval when IDs are known, as opposed to search_evidence or ingest_document. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the wording provides clear contextual cues for appropriate use.

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