Rewrite-regression probe pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It doesn't say whether this is a read-only lookup or a generator, what the 'shapes/classes/advisories' are, or what any response looks like; only the noun phrase hints at static informational content.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is not verbose. However, the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency — the one clause spends its words on unfamiliar jargon instead of purpose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information, and it leaves out what the tool returns and how it relates to the three sibling rewrite_* tools. An agent could not confidently select this over its siblings.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter semantics are needed.

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 sentence labels the tool as 'the launch advisory family' but never states what the tool does — no verb, no indication of whether it lists, generates, or describes anything. It gives content hints ('5 shapes with classes and advisories') but an agent cannot tell how this differs from rewrite_pack, rewrite_verdict, or rewrite_verify_pack.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any sibling as an alternative, despite three closely named siblings that all share the 'rewrite_' prefix. The agent must guess from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses authorization requirements and mentions 'Trial/pass/x402 billing,' but it omits what the tool returns, whether it mutates state, cost/rate-limit behavior, and what 'rounds' or 'payment' actually control.

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 short and front-loads the core action before the candidate and billing details. The fragments are dense but purposeful, with no wasted prose.

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?

Given six parameters, a nested object, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It provides some candidate and billing context but leaves essential parameter and behavior details undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all six parameters. It partially explains the candidate-input alternatives (house_double versus target_url+authorised+authorisation), but it never explains 'rounds' or 'payment' and does not describe the shape of the house_double object.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run a rewrite-regression pack against an authorised candidate.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like rewrite_verify_pack or rewrite_verdict.

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?

It gives candidate-selection guidance via '(house_double or target_url+authorised+authorisation)' and references billing modes, which implies usage context. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of rewrite_verify_pack, rewrite_verdict, or rewrite_family.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful traits – the result is 'precomputed' and 'signed', and there is a cost model ('$0.01 x402 or pass') – but says nothing about what happens with an unknown fingerprint, whether the fee is charged on failure, authentication beyond payment, or what the signed payload 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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than being front-loaded and informative. The jargon ('x402', 'pass') is unexplained.

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 two-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition should explain the verdict concept, the payment mechanism, and expected behavior. It touches on cost and signing but leaves an agent unable to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It only alludes to 'fingerprint' as the lookup key and vaguely gestures at 'payment' ('$0.01 x402 or pass'), without defining the fingerprint format, what a 'pass' is, or how the payment string is constructed.

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 is a noun phrase ('Precomputed signed per-class verdict by candidate fingerprint') rather than a clear action, leaving it ambiguous whether the tool retrieves or computes a verdict. It shares the word 'rewrite' with every sibling (rewrite_family, rewrite_pack, rewrite_verify_pack) but gives no basis for telling them apart.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to rewrite_family, rewrite_pack, or rewrite_verify_pack. The only situational hint is a price, which does not guide tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose one useful behavioral fact: verification is against a 'pinned production signing key', so no key/trust configuration is accepted. It does not say whether a failed verification raises an error or returns a negative result, nor whether the operation is purely read-only.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 verification tool with an opaque nested-object input, no output schema and no annotations, the description omits both what the pack must contain and what the caller gets back (boolean, verdict object, exception). An agent cannot call this confidently without guessing.

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 0% for a single nested object parameter, so the description must compensate and largely fails: it says 'signed pack' but never describes the object's expected fields, signature format, or serialization. Only a minimal hint is added beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Verify a signed pack') and the trust anchor ('pinned production signing key'), which cleanly separates it from rewrite_pack and rewrite_verdict. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 guidance on when to use this versus rewrite_pack, rewrite_verdict or rewrite_family, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. that the pack must already be signed). The agent must infer usage entirely.

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