get_verdict

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals a key behavioral trait: it may trigger a vetting operation if the cached result is not fresh. This warns the agent that the tool might perform a potentially expensive action. It lacks specifics on what 'fresh' means or if there are side effects, but the core conditional behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary action and the conditional logic without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it exceptionally concise and efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential behavior: returning cached verdicts or triggering vetting. It does not define 'target' or 'fresh', which are domain-specific, but the sibling tools provide context. The description is adequate for a tool of this complexity, though not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema provides only a parameter named 'target' with type string, and schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'a target' but does not define what constitutes a target, its format, or any constraints. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail, adding no meaningful semantics beyond the parameter name.

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's action: return a cached verdict or otherwise vet the target. It identifies the resource (target) and the conditional behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like vet_server and vet_directory that likely perform direct vetting without a cache-first approach.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need a verdict for a target, and it will handle freshness. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The conditional 'if fresh, else vet it now' provides context but not explicit alternative comparisons.

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