evidence_verify

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior entirely. It states nothing about side effects, read/write nature, permissions, or what happens when verification fails. The agent cannot anticipate any behavioral traits.

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?

While the text is extremely short, it is under-specification rather than meaningful conciseness. It provides no substantive content to front-load, so the tool name is the only 'structure' – and that is insufficient.

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?

With 13 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no description, the tool is almost entirely opaque. The agent cannot know input requirements, expected output, error behavior, or how this fits into the broader workflow. Complete inadequacy.

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%, and the description adds nothing about the 13 parameters (including context, end_line, source_hash, etc.). Without any schema hints or descriptive text, the agent has no idea what these parameters mean or how they relate to each other.

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 'evidence verify' is a tautology – it simply repeats the tool name without stating the verb, resource, or action. It does not distinguish this from any of the 80+ sibling tools, nor does it explain what 'verify' means in this context.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like evidence_batch_get, code_facts_validate, or semantic_confirm. An agent has zero context to choose this tool appropriately.

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