recovery_verify

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds the meaningful gate condition that the checkpoint and view state must match before clearing. It does not say what is destroyed by clearing the fence, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the states diverge, which matters for a destructive zero-argument call.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the action is stated before the condition. The phrasing is dense ('complete recorded native checkpoint and view state') but not padded.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place to explain return behavior, yet it does not say whether the call reports verification success/failure or raises on mismatch. For a destructive, irreversible-sounding operation, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 gives a concrete verb and object ('Clear a recovery fence'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, the tool is named recovery_verify while the described action is a destructive clear, and 'recovery fence' is unexplained jargon, so an agent cannot fully tell what this does versus recovery_status, recovery_restore, or checkpoint_release.

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 phrase 'only after the complete recorded native checkpoint and view state actually match' implies a precondition for invocation, which is useful. But there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do when the states do not match, and no routing to sibling tools such as recovery_status or checkpoint_restore.

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