verify_ingest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool checks (residue prefixes), that ingest_items already prevents them, and describes the return value and its meaning. It does not mention side effects, but given the tool is likely read-only, this is adequate.

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 and front-loaded with an emoji and bold text. Every sentence is relevant. The structure could be more organized, but it effectively communicates key information without waste.

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 simple purpose (verification), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, usage, and return value. The tool has an output schema, and the description explains its shape adequately. It is complete for this level of complexity.

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 description fully explains the two parameters: paper_id for checking an entire paper, question_ids for specific questions, and that they are mutually exclusive. This adds significant value beyond the schema, which only provides types and defaults. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates completely.

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's purpose: to verify that ingested test papers have no residue prefixes. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('ingest'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ingest_question and ingest_items by being a post-ingest verification step.

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 explicit usage guidance: '每次灌完卷/批必须跑一次' (must run every time after ingesting a paper/batch) and that residue_count must be 0. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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