agent_evidence_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool runs local commands (git, test, lint) but doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., modifying git state, consuming user resources, or requiring network access). The description is clear on intended behavior but lacks depth on risks or limits.

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 sentence that effectively conveys the tool's purpose and primary actions. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, given 3 parameters and no output schema, it could have included more context without being verbose.

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 tool is moderately complex (runs multiple commands, outputs a report) with no output schema. The description gives the big picture but lacks detail on what the report contains, error handling, or how timeoutMs affects operations. It's minimally complete for a 3-param tool with no output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; it just summarizes the tool's action. The schema already adequately describes the three parameters.

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 a specific verb (Run, inspect, execute) and identifies the resource (Evidence Gate validation) with concrete actions: git status/diff and test/typecheck/lint commands. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are about sending, canceling, status, sessions, and review loops.

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 implies this is used for evidence gathering before code changes, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the workspace having git and test commands) or when not to use it.

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