credence_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: two annotation tiers (stale/unverified), their sources, and scope (code blocks and prose). It does not mention output format, but output schema is present, so this is sufficient.

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 concise, uses bullets for tiers, and front-loads the purpose. Each sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, output schema, no annotations), the description adequately explains the scanning behavior and tiers. It could mention the output structure but the schema fills this gap. Overall complete for the context.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (session_id, output_text, current_turn).

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 tool scans model output for numeric literals matching registered constraints, with a specific verb-resource combination ('scan model output') and distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., verify, register).

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 implies usage for scanning output against constraints and defines two annotation tiers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., credence_verify), nor provides exclusions or prerequisites.

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