check_fire_compartment_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It says 'find' implying read-only, but does not confirm safety, side effects, or what 'source-bound human-confirmation needs' entails. Insufficient disclosure.

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 very concise (13 words), but the brevity sacrifices clarity. It could be more effective with additional context without becoming overly verbose.

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 tool has 3 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain input semantics, return format, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 map to the three parameters (text, atomic_items, sheet_manifest). The description adds no meaning about how these parameters relate to evidence terms or confirmation needs.

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 states a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'fire-compartment related evidence terms and source-bound human-confirmation needs', making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_material_evidence, so a slight deduction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions provided, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate invocation.

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