verify_claim

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output shape (summary plus per-check findings with evidence line numbers) and the two outcome types, which is useful. However, it says nothing about what use_llm changes, cost/latency, or scope of the scan, leaving real behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required and the description's brief output note is adequate. But with 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the definition is only minimally complete for a 3-parameter verification tool.

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 never mentions any of the three parameters. It implies the 'claim' input loosely, but root and use_llm are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb+resource: check whether a natural-language claim about code is supported or contradicted. This is a distinctive analysis operation not duplicated by any sibling. It does not explicitly contrast itself against siblings like semantic_search or search, but the purpose is clear.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent gets no signal on when verification is preferable to search/semantic_search, nor prerequisites such as needing a repository root or the effect of use_llm.

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