run_eval

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses offline/live behavior and environment variable requirements, but it does not mention side effects such as writing HTML/JSON output files or whether the tool persists results elsewhere. This is partial transparency rather than a contradiction.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds essential mode details. There is no filler, repetition of the tool name, or unnecessary background.

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 five parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It explains the mock/live distinction but does not explain what eval_set should contain, valid tag formats, or where html_out/json_out outputs are written. An output schema may describe return values, but invocation-relevant context is still missing.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only explains 'mock'; the required 'eval_set' parameter is never defined, and 'tags', 'html_out', and 'json_out' are left entirely to inference from their names. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 action and resource: '跑一批评测用例' (run a batch of evaluation test cases). This is clear enough to distinguish run_eval from sibling tools like list_eval_sets or compare_runs, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 provides clear contextual guidance on when to use mock mode (offline, no Dify instance) versus live mode (requires DIFY_BASE_URL/DIFY_API_KEY). It does not mention sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the mode-based usage guidance is explicit and actionable.

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