alterios_verify_delivery_evidence

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions, error behavior) beyond the vague verb 'verify'. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 (two clauses) but too brief given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema). It would be a 5 if it were equally clear and complete, but here it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what verification criteria are used, how parameters influence behavior, or what the output contains. The tool's role among many siblings is unclear.

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 adds almost no meaning to the input schema parameters. While 'work_item_ref' and 'agent_handoff_refs' are implied, the purpose of 'dotenv_path', 'allow_closed', and 'required_roles' is not explained. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 action ('verify') and the specific resources ('private Gitea work item' and 'structured agent handoff comments'). This distinguishes it from list/create tools, but could be more precise about what verification entails.

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 alternatives like gitea_list_work_items or alterios_add_comment. No mention of context or exclusions.

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