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. It explains the tool combines multiple inputs and writes a ZIP file, listing contents (run JSON, case PDFs, answer keys, JUnit XML, manifest). It also describes the return value structure. However, it does not mention potential side effects like file overwriting or error handling, which would elevate it to 5.

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: a concise one-line summary, followed by a brief paragraph on contents, then Args/Returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While somewhat lengthy for a simple tool, every sentence adds value and the structure aids readability.

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 the tool has 3 required parameters and no output schema shown (though context says one exists), the description covers inputs and return structure thoroughly. It includes a note about the manifest's utility. Missing elements are prerequisites (e.g., run must have been executed) and error conditions, but overall it is complete for typical use.

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 input schema lacks descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates fully with a dedicated 'Args' section that explains each parameter in context: run_json_path is from 'pdfhell run --out', cases_dir contains case PDFs and answer keys, output_zip_path is where to write. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb-resource combination: 'Build a hash-chained audit ZIP from a pdfhell run.' It defines the output format and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (eval_*, pdfhell_make/run) which focus on evaluation metrics or execution, not packaging.

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 states the tool is 'Suitable for attaching to a procurement diligence appendix,' providing a concrete use case. It implies usage after a pdfhell run, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives. Context with sibling tools clarifies its distinct role.

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