woodstitch_get_eval

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: polling is cheap, completion can take minutes to days, tight-loop polling is discouraged, and interim metrics are provisional. It also discloses key returned fields such as dashboard_url and max_additional_charge_if_canceled_now_usd, which is valuable because no output schema exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: it first names the return content, then gives polling behavior and timing expectations. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it lists the returned fields, discloses polling cost and timing, and warns that interim numbers are provisional. The main remaining gap is that it does not explain how eval_id is obtained or when to prefer this over final-results/list-evals siblings.

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?

There is one required parameter, eval_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies it identifies the evaluation being monitored, but it does not explain how to obtain eval_id or add format/source guidance beyond what the parameter name and type already convey.

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 the tool returns progress and live score for an evaluation, including status, judgements done/target, pairs with data, provisional metrics, dashboard_url, and cancellation charge. It is specific about the resource and return content, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as woodstitch_get_results or woodstitch_list_evals.

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 clear polling guidance: it is cheap to poll, human evaluations take minutes to days, and the agent should not sit in a tight loop. It also notes interim numbers are provisional, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus final-results or list-evals siblings.

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