repopilot_append_evidence

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

Annotations cover the four hints (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, etc.), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: 'This is append-only and repeated calls create distinct evidence records' directly reinforces idempotentHint=false and clarifies the mutation semantics, while immutability and hash-chaining are disclosed nowhere else. This meaningfully augments the annotation profile without contradicting it.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose is front-loaded, usage and exclusions follow, and the append-only behavioral note closes it. Every sentence earns its place and no information is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 4-param (3 required) append tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, usage context, security exclusions, behavioral traits, and enum routing. The only absence is a statement about the return value, but for an append-only record tool the response is trivially a confirmation, so this is a minor omission rather than a functional gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including payload's structure and the runId UUID pattern. The description contributes security guidance for payload ('never include credentials or raw secrets') and usage semantics for evidenceType, but the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3 is appropriate for a fully documented schema.

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 verb ('Append') and resource ('evidence record to an existing RepoPilot run'), and adds precise technical character (immutable, SHA-256 hash-chained). The enum note that proof_publication and review_publication are reserved for dedicated tools helps distinguish it from sibling publication tools, so an agent can pick it apart from alternatives without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use after each material decision, tool result, Git reference, CI result, or error') and an exclusion ('never include credentials or raw secrets'). It signals that certain evidenceType values belong to other tools, but stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to use instead in those cases — a minor gap since the enum description already carries that routing.

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