Check Understanding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the return format (corrections/rules/insights plus a verdict) and the critical meaning of 'blocked' (authoritative correction overrides the plan). This goes beyond the schema by explaining behavioral semantics, though it omits mention of any recording/persistence side effects.

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 informative but a bit dense, with multiple clauses and parentheticals. It is still well-structured, front-loads the most important usage, and each sentence adds value (usage, pre-action trigger, return semantics). Minor trimming could improve readability.

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 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides crucial context: when to invoke, what to pass for risky actions, and how to interpret the response. It could be more complete by explaining decision trail persistence, but the essential information is present.

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 92%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance for `action_description` (one sentence, what you're about to do) and mentions `goal` implicitly, but most other parameters are only documented in the schema. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: validate understanding, verify alignment, and check interpretation against human intent. It also names a distinct second purpose (pre-action safety check before irreversible writes), which differentiates it from sibling tools like remember/recall.

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 scenarios (user asks for alignment, before high-risk actions) and even lists example actions (publish, deploy, delete). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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