systematic_verify

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions '6-step systematic reasoning protocol' without explaining the steps, output format, or any side effects. The agent remains unaware of what the tool returns or how it processes input.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's core behavior without any redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, return values, and usage context. It fails to describe the 6-step protocol or what a 'verification' result looks like, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke reliably.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (problem and problem_type) with an enum, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond repetition, so the 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 states a specific action ('Apply 6-step systematic reasoning protocol') and a clear target ('any problem'), distinguishing it from more specialized sibling tools like boolean_evaluate or date_calculate. However, 'verify' is not explicitly defined, making the exact purpose slightly under-specified.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description says 'any problem' but does not clarify when this general protocol is preferred over targeted evaluators (e.g., boolean_evaluate for boolean problems). This leaves the agent without decision criteria.

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