Nemesis Verify Symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The word 'List' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or performance implications. It also does not describe what 'valid' means or how strictness affects results.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the primary action and result. No filler or redundancy. The description is highly concise and immediately comprehensible.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about expected behavior. It does not clarify the meaning of 'valid,' the impact of 'strictness' levels, or how 'exclude' is used. While it covers the core purpose, agents may lack sufficient information to make nuanced calls.

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 67% (symbol and exclude have descriptions, strictness does not). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides; it only indirectly refers to 'symbol.' It does not explain 'exclude' or 'strictness,' which could be ambiguous for an agent.

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 action ('List') on a specific resource ('test double') scoped to 'a production symbol' and adds the outcome 'whether each remains valid.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like nemesis_audit and nemesis_stale_fixtures by focusing on validity checking of test doubles.

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 implies a use case (verifying test double validity) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over its siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned, so usage context is left to inference.

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