Amnesia Evaluate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'collects' and 'validates,' but does not say whether this is a read-only analysis, whether it writes or modifies anything, whether it reads a specific report file, or how ignore_evaluation changes behavior.

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 with no filler or redundant phrasing. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, so it is concise but not maximally useful in structure.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with five parameters and several closely related siblings. It does not clarify what an 'Amnesia Test report' is, when evaluation is needed, or how the optional parameters control the validation process.

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 any of the five parameters. An agent has no way to know the meaning or expected format of evaluation_path, projects_root, kanban_board, or ignore_evaluation based on the tool definition alone.

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 names a specific action ('collects structural evidence and validates') and a specific resource ('explicit Amnesia Test report'), so an agent can tell this is an evaluation/validation tool. However, it does not differentiate it from the sibling amnesia_check, and 'structural evidence' remains vague about what exactly is collected.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as amnesia_check, capture_outcome, or search. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and vague description.

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