verifier_drift_net

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently explains the process: re-runs checks, classifies transitions, returns the signed net, and includes a current snapshot of counts. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor does it detail the exact return structure beyond 'signed net'.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The snapshot of current numbers adds context without being verbose, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns (a signed net). It does not define 'verdict transition' explicitly, but that is likely domain knowledge given the sibling tools. The current snapshot provides a concrete sense of scale, making the description complete enough for an agent to call it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to explain, and the description correctly avoids adding parameter details that don't exist.

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 a specific verb 'Measure' and a specific resource 'verifier ratchet', explaining the tool's function: re-running checks and classifying verdict transitions as hardening or loosening, returning a signed net. It is distinct from siblings like query_claim or get_verdict, which appear to be per-item tools, whereas this is an aggregate measurement.

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 measuring overall system improvement/degradation, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context from sibling names suggests it is for aggregate analysis, but the guidance is left to inference rather than being explicit.

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