verify_work

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait: this tool only prepares a route and does not execute it, requiring run_prepared_task afterward. However, it does not explain what side effects preparation has, whether state is persisted, what a 'verification route' entails, or what the agent should expect after calling it.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action appears first, and the crucial workflow dependency is stated in the second clause. There is no wasted wording, though the terseness contributes to missing behavioral and parameter context.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and a nontrivial preparation/execution workflow, the description is too thin: it explains only the broad preparation step and the follow-up tool. It omits parameter semantics, output expectations, and what happens to the prepared route, leaving the agent to infer critical details.

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%, and the description provides no information about the three parameters: material, quality, and reasoning_effort. The word 'route' hints at material but does not explain required inputs, how quality behaves, or how reasoning_effort should be set. The description does nothing to compensate for the schema's lack of coverage.

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 identifies a specific action ('Prepare') and resource ('verification route'), and it clearly distinguishes this tool from execution by noting that run_prepared_task is required. However, it does not fully differentiate the tool from other preparation-style siblings like prepare_task or route_task, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a clear workflow cue: this tool prepares a verification route, and execution must happen through run_prepared_task. This helps an agent know not to attempt execution here and to route execution to a specific sibling. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use criteria for similar preparation tools, but the context is reasonably clear.

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