get_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns only bounded snippets, never full transcripts, and how bad refs are handled. It also reveals the return structure. Missing details like authentication requirements or whether it's read-only, but the provided behavioral traits are clear and sufficient.

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 reasonably concise, starting with the main purpose and then detailing return values. The docstring-style Returns section adds clarity but could be more integrated. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the essential function.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description explains the main function, return structure, and error handling. However, it fails to describe `max_chars`, which is a key parameter, leaving a gap in completeness for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 compensate. It explains the `refs` parameter format (`<kind>:<id>`) but does not mention `max_chars` at all. The return structure is described, but parameter semantics are incomplete, leaving the agent guessing about the second parameter.

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 resolves evidence refs to bounded content snippets, specifying the format `<kind>:<id>`. The verb 'resolve' and resource 'evidence refs' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_decision or search_memory by focusing on evidence references.

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 explicit guidance on when not to use it ('never full transcript bodies') and explains error handling ('bad refs reported in unresolved without failing'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over siblings.

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