gk_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that an unknown action returns the allowed list and that this 'saves schema tokens', which is a useful behavioral quirk. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or per-action behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 that front-loads the action list and includes a concise note about unknown-action handling. Every phrase serves a purpose, with no fluff. It is efficient though slightly cramped, but structure is clear.

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 has 8 distinct actions, making it fairly complex. The description provides only a list of names and a generic usage pattern, without any per-action details. An output schema exists, which may cover return values, but the description still fails to explain the purpose and arguments of each action, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It tells the agent to pass action= and optional args={} and lists valid action values, which is some help. But it does not explain what args each action expects or map actions to their required parameters, making the parameter semantics incomplete for a multi-action tool.

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 lists the action names (submit, capture_shot, visual_critic, visual_step, visual_sequence, screenshot, journey, inspect_image) but never states what the tool does overall. It is not a tautology because it provides a specific list, but the lack of a clear verb+resource makes the purpose somewhat vague. It does distinguish from siblings by enumerating unique actions, but that is implicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description only instructs how to pass action and args, and mentions that an unknown action returns the allowed list. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are provided, so the agent receives no decision support.

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