memory_verify_generation

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does not meet it. It never says whether this is a pure read-only computation, what a failure implies, or how max_distance_threshold or check_geodesic alter the verdict. The geometric jargon ('entailment cones', 'geodesic boundaries') is unexplained, so an agent cannot predict what the check actually enforces.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the verification target immediately, with no padding sentences. The 'Tribunal Router:' prefix is branding noise that adds no meaning for an agent, which keeps it from being a 5.

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?

For a 4-parameter verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is under-specified: return shape, failure semantics, and threshold behavior are all missing. What is present is a reasonably precise statement of the check being performed, which is the minimum viable core.

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 coverage is 50%: llm_answer and context_ids are documented in the schema, leaving check_geodesic and max_distance_threshold undocumented there. The phrase 'geodesic boundaries' loosely gestures at check_geodesic, but the numerically important max_distance_threshold (default 1.5) is never mentioned, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb plus object: verify whether an LLM response stays within the entailment cones and geodesic boundaries of retrieved memories. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling memory_verify_claim, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 statement of when to call this rather than memory_verify_claim or memory_recall, and no guidance on prerequisites (must the IDs already exist in memory?). The 'Tribunal Router' framing hints at a gating role but never says whether a failing verdict should block the answer. Usage has to be inferred entirely.

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