evidence.read

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value: evidence is durable across restarts and may include incomplete intents, telling the agent results can represent unfinished operations rather than only committed state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier comes immediately after the core verb+resource. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves the reader wanting more given the undefined domain term.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the undefined concept of 'evidence' and the entirely undocumented identifiers leave real gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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?

Two required parameters (workspace_id, evidence_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what either identifier means or how to obtain it. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, so it sits below the 3 baseline that would apply with strong schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read durable operation evidence') and narrows scope with 'including incomplete intents after restart'. No sibling tool in the list deals with evidence, so it is distinguishable, but the term 'evidence' itself is domain jargon left undefined.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the sibling tools. The 'after restart' phrase faintly implies a recovery scenario but never says when an agent should reach for this tool versus, say, workflow.status.

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