get_performance_evaluation_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Get' and lists the output components. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or idempotent, nor mention any authentication or error conditions. Still, the verb 'Get' strongly implies safety.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the action and the scope of output.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields (tasks, scores, comments, summary). It could be more complete by mentioning if the evaluation must exist or if there are access constraints, but overall it provides sufficient context given the tool's simplicity.

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% with a single parameter 'evaluationId' described as 'Evaluation ID to query.' The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it just repeats the parameter usage contextually. Since schema already covers it, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets complete detail for one performance evaluation, specifying included content (tasks, scores, comments, code/document summary). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_performance_evaluations which likely provide summaries, and save_performance_draft which creates/edits.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_performance_evaluations or save_performance_draft. The tool name and description imply it's for retrieving a single evaluation's full details, but no when-not-to-use or prerequisites are stated.

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