eval_audit_pack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the ZIP is 'self-verifying, not tamper-proof', that the manifest hash should be anchored externally for tamper evidence, and that the returned manifest mirrors the one inside the ZIP. This goes beyond a simple 'build a zip' statement and helps the agent set correct expectations about the artifact's guarantees.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose statement, a concise composition list, a security caveat, and clearly separated Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds information: what is combined, when it is suitable, what caveat applies, what each argument means, and what the return shape is. 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?

The tool has an output schema and the description separately documents the return value, so return semantics are covered. It also explains the artifact contents, the tamper-evidence limitation, and per-argument provenance. It does not discuss error cases or whether an existing output file gets overwritten, but for a straightforward packaging tool the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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, and it does. It explains run_json_path as output from 'pdfhell run --out', clarifies that cases_dir must be the same directory used by the run, and states where output_zip_path writes. The only weakness is that 'output_zip_path: Where to write the audit ZIP' is thin, but the overall parameter guidance is meaningful.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build a self-verifying audit ZIP from a pdfhell run.' It clearly enumerates the ZIP contents (run JSON, case PDFs, answer keys, JUnit XML, SHA-256 manifest), which distinguishes it from the sibling eval_* tools that score or validate rather than package. An agent can immediately tell this is the packaging/audit artifact tool.

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 gives practical context: it is 'Suitable for attaching to a procurement diligence appendix' and explains when to anchor the manifest hash outside the ZIP ('when you need evidence against deliberate rewriting'). It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the sibling tools are clearly different in function (metrics/scoring vs. artifact packaging), so this is sufficient guidance.

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