manage_evidence_collection

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about 'preserving' evidence, which suggests archival or retention functionality beyond mere collection. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or specific preservation mechanisms that would enrich behavioral understanding.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Collect and preserve compliance evidence') followed by illustrative examples. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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's complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the 'what' but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or operational constraints that would help an agent invoke it correctly in varied contexts.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description implies evidence types and collection actions but adds no syntax, format, or semantic details beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

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 as 'Collect and preserve compliance evidence' with specific examples (audit logs, configuration snapshots, attestation records). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_audit_log' by emphasizing comprehensive collection and preservation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_audit_reports' or 'manage_compliance_assessments'. It mentions evidence collection generally but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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