evaluate_chunking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the use of a DummyEmbeddingFunction when no model is given, which is a key behavior. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, side effects, or other important traits.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. It could be more structured (e.g., listing modes separately), but it is not unnecessarily verbose.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain return values, how results are presented, or how parameters interrelate, making it incomplete for effective use.

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%—all 8 parameters have only titles. The description adds no explanation of any parameter, leaving their meaning entirely to the schema with no additional context.

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 can perform a dry-run cost estimate or a full evaluation, and mentions using a DummyEmbeddingFunction if no model is provided. This differentiates it from siblings like list_strategies and preview_chunks.

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 implies when to use each mode (dry_run vs full evaluation), but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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