evaluate_figure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral context. It lists the eight evaluation domains, which gives insight into what aspects are assessed. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it writes any files, or what the output schema represents beyond what might be in the external output schema.

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 one main sentence and a list of domains. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 three parameters and a nontrivial evaluation process (8 domains), the description is too thin. It does not explain how the checklist is applied, what inputs are used, or any constraints. Although an output schema exists, it is not included here, and the description alone leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters (image_path, figure_type, reference_pmid). The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description fails to add any meaning or clarify defaults or formats, making the tool ambiguous for an agent.

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 academic figure using a specific 8-domain quality checklist and lists the domains. It identifies the resource type (academic figure) and the action (evaluate), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'verify_figure' which may also assess figures.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its use for figure evaluation but fails to mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to the similar 'verify_figure' tool. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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