verify_thought

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool marks a thought as verified, but does not disclose if the action is irreversible, triggers side effects (e.g., tree updates), or affects other operations. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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, efficient sentence. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or sections, which could improve readability for longer descriptions but is not necessary here.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what 'verified' means, whether it changes the thought's state in the tree, or if there are any confirmation steps. The tool is among many thought-related siblings, but the description misses the opportunity to provide complete context for effective use.

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 100%, so the schema itself documents the parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema's 'description' fields (e.g., 'Tree ID', 'Thought ID', 'Notes explaining how/why the thought was verified'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('mark as verified') and the resource ('thought'), and specifies the context ('after confirming its findings'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'evaluate_thought' or 'select_thought' by focusing on the verification state change.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling list includes 'evaluate_thought', which might be a prerequisite, but this is not mentioned. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions.

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