get_eval

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds return scope (inputs, build counts, builds) and status-filter semantics, but it omits pagination/limit behavior and any auth or rate-limit context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and returned data, then a compact status legend. There is no filler or repetition, and the status definitions earn their place by clarifying the enum.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be fully explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 4-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description omits limit/pagination semantics and does little to distinguish eval_id or instance, leaving meaningful 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 low at 25%, with only 'instance' documented in the schema. The description partially compensates by defining the status enum meanings ('failed' = finished but not succeeded, 'queued' = not finished yet), but leaves 'limit' and 'eval_id' undocumented beyond their names and schema types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get an evaluation') and enumerates the payload ('inputs, build counts by status and its builds'), so an agent knows this is a single-evaluation read. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_evals or get_build, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It explains the status filter and its values, which guides filtering behavior. However, it never states when to choose get_eval over list_evals/get_build or any prerequisite; usage is only implied by the required eval_id and the verb 'Get'.

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