evaluate_results

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

The description explicitly includes '[MODIFIES MODEL]', which discloses a mutating behavior that would otherwise be invisible without annotations. However, it does not say what exactly changes, whether existing results are overwritten, or whether a solved analysis must already exist, so the behavioral disclosure is only partial.

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 short sentence with the mutation warning front-loaded, making it efficient and scannable. It could reach 5 by adding a brief clarification of what 'evaluate' entails without becoming bloated.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, this is minimally usable: it identifies the target, warns about mutation, and the output schema covers return values. But the vague meaning of 'evaluate', missing prerequisites, and lack of distinction from solve_analysis leave important context incomplete.

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%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the analysis_name parameter. The phrase 'in an analysis' only weakly maps to the parameter, adding little beyond the schema property title 'Analysis Name'.

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 clear action ('evaluate') and a clear resource ('all existing results in an analysis'), so an agent can identify what the tool operates on. However, 'evaluate' is somewhat generic and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as solve_analysis or get_result_summary.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool, what prerequisites must be met, or how it differs from sibling tools. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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