typesafe_verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral nuance beyond these: it never treats a claim as proven on its own and returns a proceed/review recommendation. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradiction.

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 with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds essential behavioral detail. Every word earns its place.

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, the description states the return types (support probability and recommendation) but omits how to interpret them or how support_threshold influences the outcome. It is adequate for basic use but leaves some operational details unexplained.

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 60%, so the description must partially compensate. It clarifies the role of claim and evidence through its purpose statement, but it does not explain support_threshold or comparison_model beyond what the schema already provides. It adds some value but does not fully fill the gap.

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 judges whether evidence supports a claim, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It adds details about the return (support probability and recommendation) but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like typesafe_judge, so it stops short of a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings such as typesafe_judge or typesafe_route. The purpose implies usage but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing conditions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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