Get Agent Eval

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations and schema already provide—no mention of return format, error conditions, or behavior when the agent does not exist.

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?

A single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. No filler, no repetition, and appropriately front-loaded for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only retrieval tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It leaves some ambiguity about what 'eval configs' includes, but no additional complexity requires more explanation.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'agent_id' parameter having a clear description ('Agent id whose evals to fetch'). The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond restating that it is for a given agent, so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('agent evaluation configs'), and scopes it to a given agent. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like lyzr_create_agent_eval and lyzr_get_agent_eval_result by referencing 'configs' rather than results or creation.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need an agent's eval configs) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. No guidance is given about when to prefer this over lyzr_get_agent_eval_result or other eval-related tools, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.

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