cw_command_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: absence of confirmation is not evidence of breakage, because toggles and transport actions never open a window and so window-diff witnesses report nothing. That head-off-a-false-negative warning is the kind of context annotations could not provide. It stops short of stating that the call is read-only or what the output record contains.

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 short sentences with no padding, and the core distinction (confirmed vs unconfirmed) is front-loaded. The closing clause about 'which witness would settle each one' is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic out of context.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does: per-command status, reasons for being unconfirmed, and a suggested witness. Missing is any statement of the operation's safety profile or scope (whole command set vs current context), but for a zero-argument diagnostic report this is close to sufficient.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain any argument semantics.

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 conveys the content of the report (confirmed vs unconfirmed commands and reasons), which is more than a restatement of the name. But it is framed as a question rather than a stated action, and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like cw_verify_commands, cw_command_support, or cw_list_commands, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The explanation of what 'unconfirmed' means helps interpret results but does not tell the agent under what circumstances to reach for this tool versus the verification siblings.

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