remediation_verify

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says the tool compares two inputs; it does not disclose whether this is a read-only check, whether it records anything, what it returns, or what side effects may occur.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the operation and its main inputs.

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?

The tool has three required parameters, including two unstructured nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. A one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to know what shapes to provide, what a successful verification looks like, or how this step fits into the remediation workflow.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It alludes to postSnapshot and expectation but does not explain their required structure, relationships, or the role of transactionId. The nested objects remain completely unspecified.

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 names a specific verb ('Compare') and a clear resource ('a post-remediation exposure snapshot' vs 'declared expectations'), which conveys the core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools, though the phrase 'exposure snapshot' loosely separates it from remediation_verify_ledger.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus remediation_preflight, remediation_approve, or the other siblings. The word 'post-remediation' only implies that it runs after remediation, but no workflow context or exclusion criteria are provided.

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