evaluate_expression

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or rate limits. With only openWorldHint: false annotation, the description carries the burden but fails to mention if evaluating is read-only or has side effects, leading to inadequate transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the tool's function and a necessary precondition. No redundant information exists.

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 the lack of output schema and low schema coverage, the description should provide more context about return values, errors, or usage details. It only mentions the required state and an escape hatch, missing critical information 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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (expression, frame_id) beyond stating the tool's purpose. No details on format, semantics, or constraints are provided, leaving parameter understanding entirely to 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 an expression in the debug context, with a specific verb (evaluate) and resource (expression). However, it does not distinguish from similar siblings like 'quick_evaluate', so it's not 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?

The description explicitly requires State: STOPPED, providing a clear precondition. But it offers no guidance on when to use this vs. other evaluation tools or alternatives, missing the 'when-not' or 'alternatives' criteria.

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