Evoke — test a new trick against all your problems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning output but does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It is moderately transparent but could be more explicit.

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?

Two sentences: first defines action and output, second gives usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded. No redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no enums, no nesting), the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and return value. Lacks explicit mention of non-destructive behavior but is still complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by framing the 'trick' parameter as a general insight, but does not go beyond what the schema already provides in terms of meaning.

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 clearly states the action ('Give it a trick...') and the return value ('open problems plus a scaffold'), and it differentiates from siblings like add_problem or list_problems by focusing on testing a generalization against problems.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this whenever you learn something that might generalize,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context from sibling tools implies alternatives.

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