adk-eval-guide
google/adk-docs
ADK evaluation methodology guide — metrics, evalsets, LLM-as-judge, and debugging eval failures.
What is adk-eval-guide?
Reference guide for evaluating ADK agents using the adk eval framework. Covers evaluation metrics (tool_trajectory, response_match, rubric-based, hallucinations, safety), evalset schema, configuration, and the iterative eval-fix loop. Use when running evaluations, choosing metrics, or diagnosing low scores.
- Explains 8 evaluation criteria with threshold configuration and match types (EXACT, IN_ORDER, ANY_ORDER)
- Defines evalset JSON schema for test cases, tool trajectories, and session inputs
- Documents LLM-as-judge configuration for semantic response matching and rubric-based scoring
- Provides eval-fix iteration methodology: run small, diagnose failures, fix code/prompts, rerun
- Maps common failure patterns to root causes and fixes (tool ordering, hallucinations, trajectory gaps)
- Covers multimodal evaluation, user simulation, and built-in tool evaluation patterns
How to install adk-eval-guide
npx skills add https://github.com/google/adk-docs --skill adk-eval-guide- ADK project scaffolded with adk-scaffold (or manual eval setup)
- eval_config.json and evalset.json files in your project
- Understanding of your agent's expected tool calls and response format
How to use adk-eval-guide
- 1.Read the Eval-Fix Loop section to understand the iterative methodology
- 2.Choose appropriate metrics from the 'Choosing the Right Criteria' table based on your goals
- 3.Review the EvalSet Schema to structure your test cases with expected tool_uses and responses
- 4.Configure eval_config.json with thresholds and judge_model_options for your chosen criteria
- 5.Run make eval (scaffolded) or adk eval (manual) with a small 1-2 case evalset
- 6.Analyze scores and failure messages, then fix agent instructions or evalset expectations
- 7.Iterate until cases pass, then expand to full evalset coverage
- 8.Reference criteria-guide.md for complete metrics details and custom metric patterns
Use cases
- Debugging why tool_trajectory_avg_score or response_match_score is below threshold
- Choosing between response_match_score, final_response_match_v2, and rubric_based metrics for your use case
- Setting up eval_config.json with correct criteria thresholds and judge model options
- Iterating on agent instructions and evalsets to improve evaluation scores
- Validating multi-turn conversations and tool call sequences in test cases
- ADK agent developers running adk eval or make eval
- QA engineers setting up CI/CD evaluation pipelines
- Prompt engineers debugging low evaluation scores
- Developers building multi-agent or multimodal systems with ADK
adk-eval-guide FAQ
response_match_score is lexical/exact matching (fast, deterministic, good for CI/CD). final_response_match_v2 uses LLM-as-judge for semantic matching (flexible phrasing, slower, better for quality gates).
Common causes: (1) tool calls in wrong order — use IN_ORDER/ANY_ORDER match type, (2) agent called extra tools — add strict stop instructions or use rubric_based_tool_use_quality_v1, (3) evalset tool_uses incomplete — include all expected calls in chronological order.
Start with 1-2 cases to validate the eval setup and iteration loop. Expect 5-10+ iterations per case. Only expand to full coverage after initial cases pass.
Yes — use conversation_scenario instead of conversation in your evalset, and configure user_simulator_config in eval_config.json. See references/user-simulation.md for details.
tool_trajectory_avg_score works for multimodal. For response quality, use a custom evaluator since built-in metrics are text-focused. See references/multimodal-eval.md for the custom evaluator pattern.
Full instructions (SKILL.md)
Source of truth, from google/adk-docs.
name: adk-eval-guide description: > MUST READ before running any ADK evaluation. ADK evaluation methodology — eval metrics, evalset schema, LLM-as-judge, tool trajectory scoring, and common failure causes. Use when evaluating agent quality, running adk eval, or debugging eval results. Do NOT use for API code patterns (use adk-cheatsheet), deployment (use adk-deploy-guide), or project scaffolding (use adk-scaffold). metadata: license: Apache-2.0 author: Google
ADK Evaluation Guide
Scaffolded project? If you used
/adk-scaffold, you already havemake eval,tests/eval/evalsets/, andtests/eval/eval_config.json. Start withmake evaland iterate from there.Non-scaffolded? Use
adk evaldirectly — see Running Evaluations below.
Reference Files
| File | Contents |
|---|---|
references/criteria-guide.md | Complete metrics reference — all 8 criteria, match types, custom metrics, judge model config |
references/user-simulation.md | Dynamic conversation testing — ConversationScenario, user simulator config, compatible metrics |
references/builtin-tools-eval.md | google_search and model-internal tools — trajectory behavior, metric compatibility |
references/multimodal-eval.md | Multimodal inputs — evalset schema, built-in metric limitations, custom evaluator pattern |
The Eval-Fix Loop
Evaluation is iterative. When a score is below threshold, diagnose the cause, fix it, rerun — don't just report the failure.
How to iterate
- Start small: Begin with 1-2 eval cases, not the full suite
- Run eval:
make eval(oradk evalif no Makefile) - Read the scores — identify what failed and why
- Fix the code — adjust prompts, tool logic, instructions, or the evalset
- Rerun eval — verify the fix worked
- Repeat steps 3-5 until the case passes
- Only then add more eval cases and expand coverage
Expect 5-10+ iterations. This is normal — each iteration makes the agent better.
What to fix when scores fail
| Failure | What to change |
|---|---|
tool_trajectory_avg_score low | Fix agent instructions (tool ordering), update evalset tool_uses, or switch to IN_ORDER/ANY_ORDER match type |
response_match_score low | Adjust agent instruction wording, or relax the expected response |
final_response_match_v2 low | Refine agent instructions, or adjust expected response — this is semantic, not lexical |
rubric_based score low | Refine agent instructions to address the specific rubric that failed |
hallucinations_v1 low | Tighten agent instructions to stay grounded in tool output |
| Agent calls wrong tools | Fix tool descriptions, agent instructions, or tool_config |
| Agent calls extra tools | Use IN_ORDER/ANY_ORDER match type, add strict stop instructions, or switch to rubric_based_tool_use_quality_v1 |
Choosing the Right Criteria
| Goal | Recommended Metric |
|---|---|
| Regression testing / CI/CD (fast, deterministic) | tool_trajectory_avg_score + response_match_score |
| Semantic response correctness (flexible phrasing OK) | final_response_match_v2 |
| Response quality without reference answer | rubric_based_final_response_quality_v1 |
| Validate tool usage reasoning | rubric_based_tool_use_quality_v1 |
| Detect hallucinated claims | hallucinations_v1 |
| Safety compliance | safety_v1 |
| Dynamic multi-turn conversations | User simulation + hallucinations_v1 / safety_v1 (see references/user-simulation.md) |
| Multimodal input (image, audio, file) | tool_trajectory_avg_score + custom metric for response quality (see references/multimodal-eval.md) |
For the complete metrics reference with config examples, match types, and custom metrics, see references/criteria-guide.md.
Running Evaluations
# Scaffolded projects:
make eval EVALSET=tests/eval/evalsets/my_evalset.json
# Or directly via ADK CLI:
adk eval ./app <path_to_evalset.json> --config_file_path=<path_to_config.json> --print_detailed_results
# Run specific eval cases from a set:
adk eval ./app my_evalset.json:eval_1,eval_2
# With GCS storage:
adk eval ./app my_evalset.json --eval_storage_uri gs://my-bucket/evals
CLI options: --config_file_path, --print_detailed_results, --eval_storage_uri, --log_level
Eval set management:
adk eval_set create <agent_path> <eval_set_id>
adk eval_set add_eval_case <agent_path> <eval_set_id> --scenarios_file <path> --session_input_file <path>
Configuration Schema (eval_config.json)
Both camelCase and snake_case field names are accepted (Pydantic aliases). The examples below use snake_case, matching the official ADK docs.
Full example
{
"criteria": {
"tool_trajectory_avg_score": {
"threshold": 1.0,
"match_type": "IN_ORDER"
},
"final_response_match_v2": {
"threshold": 0.8,
"judge_model_options": {
"judge_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
"num_samples": 5
}
},
"rubric_based_final_response_quality_v1": {
"threshold": 0.8,
"rubrics": [
{
"rubric_id": "professionalism",
"rubric_content": { "text_property": "The response must be professional and helpful." }
},
{
"rubric_id": "safety",
"rubric_content": { "text_property": "The agent must NEVER book without asking for confirmation." }
}
]
}
}
}
Simple threshold shorthand is also valid: "response_match_score": 0.8
For custom metrics, judge_model_options details, and user_simulator_config, see references/criteria-guide.md.
EvalSet Schema (evalset.json)
{
"eval_set_id": "my_eval_set",
"name": "My Eval Set",
"description": "Tests core capabilities",
"eval_cases": [
{
"eval_id": "search_test",
"conversation": [
{
"invocation_id": "inv_1",
"user_content": { "parts": [{ "text": "Find a flight to NYC" }] },
"final_response": {
"role": "model",
"parts": [{ "text": "I found a flight for $500. Want to book?" }]
},
"intermediate_data": {
"tool_uses": [
{ "name": "search_flights", "args": { "destination": "NYC" } }
],
"intermediate_responses": [
["sub_agent_name", [{ "text": "Found 3 flights to NYC." }]]
]
}
}
],
"session_input": { "app_name": "my_app", "user_id": "user_1", "state": {} }
}
]
}
Key fields:
intermediate_data.tool_uses— expected tool call trajectory (chronological order)intermediate_data.intermediate_responses— expected sub-agent responses (for multi-agent systems)session_input.state— initial session state (overrides Python-level initialization)conversation_scenario— alternative toconversationfor user simulation (seereferences/user-simulation.md)
Common Gotchas
The Proactivity Trajectory Gap
LLMs often perform extra actions not asked for (e.g., google_search after save_preferences). This causes tool_trajectory_avg_score failures with EXACT match. Solutions:
- Use
IN_ORDERorANY_ORDERmatch type — tolerates extra tool calls between expected ones - Include ALL tools the agent might call in your expected trajectory
- Use
rubric_based_tool_use_quality_v1instead of trajectory matching - Add strict stop instructions: "Stop after calling save_preferences. Do NOT search."
Multi-turn conversations require tool_uses for ALL turns
The tool_trajectory_avg_score evaluates each invocation. If you don't specify expected tool calls for intermediate turns, the evaluation will fail even if the agent called the right tools.
{
"conversation": [
{
"invocation_id": "inv_1",
"user_content": { "parts": [{"text": "Find me a flight from NYC to London"}] },
"intermediate_data": {
"tool_uses": [
{ "name": "search_flights", "args": {"origin": "NYC", "destination": "LON"} }
]
}
},
{
"invocation_id": "inv_2",
"user_content": { "parts": [{"text": "Book the first option"}] },
"final_response": { "role": "model", "parts": [{"text": "Booking confirmed!"}] },
"intermediate_data": {
"tool_uses": [
{ "name": "book_flight", "args": {"flight_id": "1"} }
]
}
}
]
}
App name must match directory name
The App object's name parameter MUST match the directory containing your agent:
# CORRECT - matches the "app" directory
app = App(root_agent=root_agent, name="app")
# WRONG - causes "Session not found" errors
app = App(root_agent=root_agent, name="flight_booking_assistant")
The before_agent_callback Pattern (State Initialization)
Always use a callback to initialize session state variables used in your instruction template. This prevents KeyError crashes on the first turn:
async def initialize_state(callback_context: CallbackContext) -> None:
state = callback_context.state
if "user_preferences" not in state:
state["user_preferences"] = {}
root_agent = Agent(
name="my_agent",
before_agent_callback=initialize_state,
instruction="Based on preferences: {user_preferences}...",
)
Eval-State Overrides (Type Mismatch Danger)
Be careful with session_input.state in your evalset. It overrides Python-level initialization:
// WRONG — initializes feedback_history as a string, breaks .append()
"state": { "feedback_history": "" }
// CORRECT — matches the Python type (list)
"state": { "feedback_history": [] }
// NOTE: Remove these // comments before using — JSON does not support comments.
Model thinking mode may bypass tools
Models with "thinking" enabled may skip tool calls. Use tool_config with mode="ANY" to force tool usage, or switch to a non-thinking model for predictable tool calling.
Common Eval Failure Causes
| Symptom | Cause | Fix |
|---|---|---|
Missing tool_uses in intermediate turns | Trajectory expects match per invocation | Add expected tool calls to all turns |
| Agent mentions data not in tool output | Hallucination | Tighten agent instructions; add hallucinations_v1 metric |
| "Session not found" error | App name mismatch | Ensure App name matches directory name |
| Score fluctuates between runs | Non-deterministic model | Set temperature=0 or use rubric-based eval |
tool_trajectory_avg_score always 0 | Agent uses google_search (model-internal) | Remove trajectory metric; see references/builtin-tools-eval.md |
| Trajectory fails but tools are correct | Extra tools called | Switch to IN_ORDER/ANY_ORDER match type |
| LLM judge ignores image/audio in eval | get_text_from_content() skips non-text parts | Use custom metric with vision-capable judge (see references/multimodal-eval.md) |
Deep Dive: ADK Docs
For the official evaluation documentation, fetch these pages:
- Evaluation overview:
https://adk.dev/evaluate/index.md - Criteria reference:
https://adk.dev/evaluate/criteria/index.md - User simulation:
https://adk.dev/evaluate/user-sim/index.md
Debugging Example
User says: "tool_trajectory_avg_score is 0, what's wrong?"
- Check if agent uses
google_search— if so, seereferences/builtin-tools-eval.md - Check if using
EXACTmatch and agent calls extra tools — tryIN_ORDER - Compare expected
tool_usesin evalset with actual agent behavior - Fix mismatch (update evalset or agent instructions)
Related skills
More from google/adk-docs and the wider catalog.

adk-observability-guide
Configure monitoring, tracing, and logging for ADK agents—Cloud Trace, prompt-response logging, BigQuery analytics, and third-party integrations.

adk-scaffold
Scaffold new ADK agent projects or enhance existing ones with deployment, CI/CD, and infrastructure templates.

adk-cheatsheet
Python ADK API quick reference for agent types, tools, orchestration, and state management.

adk-deploy-guide
Deploy ADK agents to Google Cloud with confidence—Agent Engine, Cloud Run, GKE, and CI/CD pipelines.

google-agents-cli-adk-code
Quick reference for ADK Python API patterns, tools, callbacks, and agent code examples.

google-agents-cli-deploy
Deploy ADK agents to Agent Runtime, Cloud Run, or GKE with managed infrastructure and CI/CD.