black_souls_eval_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns pass/fail per condition, which is consistent and provides modest additional detail beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the action, the second provides context and outcome. Every word contributes meaning.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and return type, and an output schema presumably details the return structure. However, it omits any explanation of the input parameter structure, which is complex with nested objects and conditional fields. Given the tool's specificity to eval scenarios and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete but has a 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?

The description does not mention the 'check_conditions' parameter. With 0% schema coverage, it is critical for the description to explain the parameter structure, but it fails to do so. The agent must rely solely on the schema, which has enum types and conditional fields.

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 uses specific verb 'check' and resource 'scenario completion conditions', clearly distinguishing from sibling status tools like black_souls_status. The mention of 'used by the eval runner' provides context and differentiates it as an evaluation-specific tool.

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 states it is used by the eval runner and returns pass/fail, implying it is for automated scenario completion checks. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or provide alternative tool names for general status queries.

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