dialectic_evidence

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details side effects (bumping counts, recomputing confidence/tier, possible events) and explains weight discounting logic. Missing authorization or error handling, but still thorough.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and then breaks down details in a structured way. Every sentence adds information; could be slightly more concise but remains efficient.

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 complexity (side effects, event emission, weight discounting), the description covers most important aspects. Mentions output schema exists but does not describe return values; still highly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must add meaning. It explains kind (support/contradict), source (freeform pointer with examples), weight (base trust with discounting), and defaults. Adds significant value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Attach evidence to a claim.' with specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tools like dialectic_claim and dialectic_supersede by focusing on evidence attachment.

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?

Description explains when to use the tool (for attaching evidence) and provides context for weight discounting depending on session type. Does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, but usage is clear.

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