Get Agent Eval Result By Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what the returned results look like, whether they are aggregated, or error behavior.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition exist; it is appropriately concise for a single-parameter read operation.

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's simplicity, the schema's full param coverage, and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is largely complete. It could benefit from clarifying what 'evaluation results' includes or how this relates to sibling eval tools, but it is sufficient for basic 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter (agent_id) described as 'Agent id whose eval results to fetch'. The description's 'given agent id' merely echoes the schema without adding any additional semantic detail, so the baseline score of 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'), resource ('agent evaluation results'), and scope ('for a given agent id'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from generic eval tools by explicitly keying on agent id.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lyzr_get_agent_eval_result or lyzr_get_agent_eval. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions is given.

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