evolve_review

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires any permissions, or any side effects. It merely states it lists suggestions, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words. It conveys the essential point efficiently and is appropriately front-loaded.

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 a single optional parameter and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on pagination, ordering, or the structure of suggestions, which could be important for an agent.

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 description mentions 'pending (or all)', which hints at the parameter 'include_applied' but does not explicitly describe it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some context but not enough to fully clarify the parameter's meaning or usage.

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 'List' and the resource 'format-evolution suggestions for review', with a specific scope ('pending or all'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'evolve_apply' or 'evolve_decide' which involve different actions.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'evolve_decide', 'evolve_apply', or 'review_candidates'. The description does not explain the context for listing suggestions or when to include applied ones.

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