verify_delivery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals what checks are performed, but does not disclose what happens on success or failure — whether it returns a boolean, throws an error, or exits with a non-zero code. This is critical for a verification tool and is left entirely unspecified.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently structured and each clause corresponds to a parameter or core behavior. Slightly more structure could have accommodated usage guidance, but as written it is appropriately tight.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. Missing: what the tool returns, how failure is signaled, whether the operation is read-only, and how min_bytes/max_bytes behave when omitted. An agent cannot fully predict invocation consequences from this definition.

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 does connect 'within size bounds' to the min_bytes/max_bytes parameters and 'exists' to path, adding meaning the bare schema lacks. However, it does not clarify whether the bounds are inclusive, what happens when only one bound is supplied, or what kind of path is expected.

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 ('Verify') and resource ('artifact') and enumerates precise conditions: existence, non-emptiness, and size bounds. It is clearly distinct from siblings like ship, render_markdown, and count_pages, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. The siblings are obviously different operations, so context is weakly implied rather than stated, but there is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate calling context, or when NOT to use it.

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