trw_validate_agent_work_evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'return structured errors' but does not detail what 'structured errors' means, whether it is read-only, or if any side effects occur. The description is adequate but lacks depth on behavioral specifics.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the purpose and usage context well. However, it does not describe the return format or error structure, which would be helpful for a validation tool. Still, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'data', and its schema description is 'Candidate AgentWorkEvidence JSON object.' The tool description adds the same wording, so it provides minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. With high coverage, baseline is 3.

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 that the tool validates an AgentWorkEvidence candidate and returns structured errors. It uses a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('AgentWorkEvidence candidate'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'trw_agent_work_evidence' by focusing on validation rather than creation or retrieval.

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 explicit context for when to use: 'Use when an external producer or fixture needs schema validation before evidence is accepted...' This gives clear guidance, though it does not mention when not to use or list alternative tools.

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