evolve_format

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It correctly describes the tool as proposing changes, but does not mention side effects (e.g., does it store proposals?), authorization needs, or rate limits. The behavior is simple and not destructive, so a score of 3 is fair.

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 very concise (two sentences plus examples) with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse.

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 tool has only two simple parameters and an output schema exists. The description covers the main purpose but lacks parameter documentation. Given the tool's simplicity, a score of 3 reflects adequate but not fully comprehensive context.

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 add meaning. The examples imply the format of 'suggestion', but it does not define the parameter semantics explicitly. The 'rationale' parameter is entirely undocumented. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 (propose changes to the brief format) and provides concrete examples. It distinguishes from siblings like 'evolve_apply' which apply changes, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 gives implicit guidance through examples and states 'the format is not fixed – this is how it adapts', indicating when to use. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools, though context from sibling names helps.

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