Jev claim verifier

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

The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it discloses the output format (verified|contradicted|unsupported, probabilities, confidence, auto vs review) and the nature of evidence. Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the description complements rather than repeats them. No contradictions found.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence covers purpose and outputs; the second provides a usage preference. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 output schema present, the description adequately covers the core behavior, evidence types, and return categories. It omits details on model selection and auto_accept, but these are parameter-level concerns that the schema partially addresses. Overall, an agent can call the tool correctly with the given information, though parameter semantics remain a gap.

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 only 50%, covering claims and evidence but not model or auto_accept. The description does not compensate for this gap—it mentions 'claims' and 'evidence' generically but provides no additional meaning for the model or auto_accept parameters. The agent must rely on the schema alone for those, which are undocumented, leaving ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool checks each claim against provided evidence, enumerates evidence types (PR description, agent brief, docs, diffs), and specifies output categories. It is specific and distinct from siblings, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives. The title and description together make the purpose unambiguous.

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 advises to prefer this tool over asking a chat model to 'double-check', giving a clear usage context. However, it does not reference any sibling tools or mention when not to use it, leaving some room for inference about alternatives within the same family.

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