report_verification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain that outcome can be 'done' or a step number indicating responsibility for the earliest discrepancy, and that findings should capture each discrepancy with evidence or what was checked when done. However, it omits what finishing the step does to the session, whether it triggers downstream effects, and whether the action is reversible.

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 short and front-loads the core action before detailing the two parameters. The line-broken format with 'outcome:' and 'findings:' is slightly unconventional but not wasteful, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain side effects and process context. It does not clarify how this tool relates to complete_step, current_step, or end_session, nor does it state what happens to the verification session after the report is submitted.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for outcome by defining the 'done' value and the 0–9 step-number convention, and for findings by explaining the expected content for discrepancies and completed checks. Only session_id lacks added meaning, but the schema already documents it as the ID returned by start_session.

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 action: finish a verify step. It also explains what outcome and findings represent, so the agent can understand the immediate purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling complete_step, leaving ambiguity about why one would finish a verification via this tool versus a generic step-completion tool.

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 the tool is used to conclude a verify step, but gives no explicit guidance on when to call it versus complete_step, escalate, or end_session. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions that select this tool over its siblings.

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