verify_runtime_resilience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool uses isolated state and never the active page, but says nothing about what the tool mutates, what side effects occur, or what operational requirements exist.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the dense jargon 'installed recovery decisions' reduces immediate comprehension.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. However, for a zero-parameter operational tool with no annotations and many overlapping recovery-related siblings, the description is too sparse to explain when to run it, what behavior is verified, or how it relates to nearby tools such as runtime_health and recover_current_task.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema is empty and self-contained, making the baseline score of 4 appropriate.

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 gives a vague action and scope: exercising installed recovery decisions in isolated state rather than the active page. It does not clearly define what 'installed recovery decisions' means or how this differs from siblings like runtime_health or recover_current_task, leaving the purpose only partially clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'never the active page' is a safety constraint, not usage guidance.

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