oc_evidence_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value beyond them by specifying session/tenant scoping and stable error codes for expired, deleted, malformed, or unauthorized handles. This provides useful operational behavior not captured by annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first fronts the core action, the second adds essential scoping and error behavior. No wasted words, efficient and well-structured.

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 tool is a simple read operation; annotations cover safety, schema covers parameters, output schema exists for return values, and the description covers scoping and error handling. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (retrieve), a concrete resource (durable oc_assert evidence artifact), and the key identifier (handle). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like oc_assert (creation) and oc_evidence_bundle (bundling) by focusing on single artifact retrieval.

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 usage context: you need a handle from oc_assert and provides guidance on the sessionId parameter (use the one from oc_assert.evidence_get). It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives but the scenario is clear enough for an agent to select it when retrieving a single artifact.

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