test_evaluator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns the actual score and reasoning, and that it's for verification before committing Sn annotation contradicts, but it does not detail side effects, permissions, or what happens on failure. It adds some context beyond the schema but not exhaustive.

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 and well-structured: it starts with the primary action, explains required keys, provides an example, describes return value, and ends with a usage hint. No wasted words; each sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (nested inputs object) and lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the required keys in the nested object徒 provides an example, and clarifies the return type. It could mention edge cases like missing inputs handling, but the schema already marks required fields. Overall, sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters in terms of names and basic descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the required keys in the 'inputs' object (e.g., 'input' and 'output' at minimum) and providing an example. However, it doesn't elaborate on 'generation_method' beyond what schema provides, so it's adequate but not exceptional.

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 that the tool test-runs a grader with sample inputs to verify scoring before committing, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'run_evaluator' and 'commit_evaluator' by emphasizing the pre-commit verification purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (before committing an evaluator) and implies when not to use it (when committing is intended). It explicitly says 'Use this before commit_evaluator,' which is clear guidance, though it doesn't list specific alternatives or exclusions beyond that.

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