get_agent_evaluation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing beyond 'full detail'. It does not state whether the result is read-only, what 'full detail' contains versus the summary tool, or what happens for an unknown id.

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?

A single short sentence that leads with the verb and resource, with no filler. The '<->' notation is slightly awkward but costs nothing in length.

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 detail-fetching tool with no output schema, the agent cannot learn what 'full detail' returns, nor how to obtain the required id. Given the crowded sibling set of near-identical get_* tools, this leaves real 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only clue; calling the target an 'agent<->evaluation assignment' hints at what the id identifies. However, it gives no format, source, or discovery hint for agent_evaluation_id.

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?

Names a specific verb (Get) and resource (agent<->evaluation assignment) with a stated scope of 'full detail', which separates it from the list variant. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_agent_evaluation_summary, which is the closest sibling and the likeliest confusion point.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative get_agent_evaluation_summary, and no indication of where the id comes from (presumably list_agent_evaluations). The singular 'one' only weakly implies a lookup use case.

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