gauge_evaluate

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It states it returns pass/fail and detailed evaluation, and implies a read-only analysis, but does not explicitly confirm whether it has side effects or requires specific permissions. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the key prerequisite (gauge_disconnect). It is concise with no unnecessary words.

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 description covers the tool's main purpose, the prerequisite, and the return type (pass/fail and detailed evaluation). Since there is no output schema, this return info is valuable. It does not go into edge cases or detailed output structure, but it is sufficient for common usage.

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?

The schema has full coverage of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning success criteria and trace data, which is already in the schema.

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 evaluates trace session results based on success criteria, using the verb '評価する' and specifying the resource (trace data from sessions ended with gauge_disconnect). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing gauge_disconnect and focusing on post-session evaluation.

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 indicates this tool is intended for evaluating sessions that have been ended via gauge_disconnect, providing a clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it lacks full when-to-use contrast.

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