list_evaluators

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 implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly confirm safety, authentication needs, or response behavior beyond 'with pagination'. It adds no details about side effects or constraints, which for a simple list tool is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

For a simple list endpoint with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps: it does not state that all parameters are optional, does not explain pagination defaults or limits, and does not mention the response format beyond 'listing'. Given the low complexity, it is adequate but not fully rounded.

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 schema descriptions for 'page' and 'page_size' are complete and clear (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'evaluators', and the scope 'in your organization'. It also mentions pagination, which distinctively identifies its behavior among sibling list tools like list_experiments or list_logs.

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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of listing evaluators makes its purpose apparent. It lacks any mention of exclusions or alternative tools for filtered or detailed queries, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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