verify_claim

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It explicitly says the operation is read-only, performs 'no LLM', and 'Detects, never writes.' It also discloses the exact return shape and all verdict meanings, and even flags a historical bug that could mislead agents into treating absence of contradiction as support.

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 long but dense, front-loading the critical read-only and before-asserting context. Every section earns its place: verdict definitions, the decidable-path advice, supersession awareness, and the historical caveat. It is slightly verbose, but the complexity of the tool's verdict semantics justifies the length.

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 the nuanced verdict behavior, sparse parameter schema, and absent output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return dictionary, all possible verdict values, the supersession-aware behavior, and the practical guidance for making a decidable check. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 compensate. It explains that `key` and `object` should be passed when available and that this makes the check decidable, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it never explicitly defines `text` as the claim being verified, and the precise semantics of `key` and `object` are only implied rather than directly described.

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: it is a 'READ-TIME grounding check' that verifies whether a memory-claim is supported by current stored truth. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself 'the output-side complement to check_conflict' and by contrasting with write-gate behavior.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: run this before asserting a memory-claim back to the user. It tells the agent to pass `key` and `object` when available for a 'decidable path', and it clarifies that only 'supported' means the store backs the claim. It also positions itself against check_conflict and write-gates, making the alternative usage clear.

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