get_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation is a fetch (implying read-only) and that results are scoped to tenant, which is useful. However, it does not explain what happens when the chunk_id is not found, whether tenant_id is required for scoping despite its default null, or any permission constraints.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and key identifiers. Every phrase contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is an example of efficient, well-structured documentation.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to detail them. What is missing is guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely named sibling retrieve_evidence, and any clarification of optional tenant scoping. For a simple get-by-id tool it is mostly adequate, but it leaves minor usage context gaps.

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 does add meaning by clarifying that chunk_id is an integer ID for an evidence chunk and that tenant_id relates to tenant scoping. However, it omits the optional/nullable nature of tenant_id and does not specify how the scoping behaves when tenant_id is null, leaving important semantic details uncovered.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('specific evidence chunk') and an unambiguous identifier ('integer chunk ID'), plus scoping ('scoped to tenant'). It effectively conveys the core operation, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like retrieve_evidence, so differentiation relies on the phrase 'by its integer chunk ID'.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus retrieve_evidence or other siblings, and it does not state any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied: if you have a chunk ID and need that chunk, you might call this. No alternatives or contextual cues are given.

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