martin_get_verification_results

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. Description adds context about data sources (loop events, ledger entries). No additional behavioral details like error conditions or performance implications are provided.

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?

Single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with verb 'Load'. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 output schema present, return values are explained elsewhere. However, description lacks details on edge cases (e.g., no results found) or prerequisites (e.g., run must exist). Adequate for a simple tool but not comprehensive.

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 descriptions already cover all three parameters (file, loopId, runsDir) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, but the mention of 'stored loop events and ledger entries' implicitly relates to parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it loads verification evidence for a Martin run from specific sources (loop events, ledger entries). It differentiates from siblings like martin_status or martin_get_run by focusing on verification results, but could be more explicit about when to use this tool over similar ones.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as martin_get_run or martin_inspect. The description does not mention prerequisites, expected run state, or when not to use it.

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