get_verification_report

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

The description discloses multiple behavioral traits: default summary behavior, the meaning of 'stale' and automatic re-evaluation, handling of misaligned_assertion_ids, and the distinction between stale and insufficient verdicts. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: summary stats, per-control status, sufficiency details, and the staleness mechanism. It is complete for a read-only report 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 coverage is 83%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining default behavior for summary_only and elaborating on the status filter. It clarifies that setting summary_only=False includes full assertion details and drift items, which is not in the schema.

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 it retrieves a verification report with summary stats and sufficiency gaps. It specifies that it returns tier1/tier2 pass/fail/pending counts and per-control verification status, distinguishing it from siblings like get_compliance_report or get_control.

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 provides some usage hints, e.g., default summary only and the summary_only parameter, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison with siblings is made.

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