dialectic_evidence

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations (which only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive). It details weight discounting based on session type, side effects (bumping counts, recomputing confidence/tier, potential events), and how effective weight is computed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (6 sentences), front-loaded with the core action and parameter definitions. It is well-structured with clear parameter explanations in a list-like format. No unnecessary 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?

The description covers the main purpose, parameters, and side effects. However, it does not explain the output schema (returns something), error conditions (e.g., invalid claim_id), or the 'quote' parameter. Given the tool's complexity and lack of schema descriptions, it is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies 'kind' (support/contradict), 'source' (with examples), and 'weight' (with discounting logic). 'claim_id' is self-explanatory but not described; 'quote' is not explained at all. Overall, meaningful value added for 3 of 5 parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Attach evidence to a claim.' It specifies the verb (attach) and resource (evidence to a claim), and distinguishes from sibling tools like dialectic_claim (creating a claim) by the action and parameters.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are many sibling tools (e.g., dialectic_claim, dialectic_review, dialectic_observation_resolve), but the description does not mention when to choose this one or when not to use it.

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