evidence_read

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that the tool performs an integrity check, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not explain what the check validates or what failures look like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, even if it omits details covered elsewhere.

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?

For a low-complexity read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly adequate but not complete. It leaves the integrity-check behavior undefined and provides no semantic detail for the two required parameters despite zero schema description coverage.

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 carry the burden of explaining both parameters. It mentions 'project' and 'evidence' only as nouns and does not clarify that evidence is a 64-character hex hash or what the project identifier represents, leaving meanings to be inferred from the schema names and patterns.

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 (read) and resource (evidence), plus an additional integrity-check action, so an agent can understand the core operation. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like evidence_store or explain how it differs from them, which keeps it below a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent must infer appropriate usage from the tool name and the single-sentence description alone.

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