hyperspace_verify_generation

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It never says whether the call is read-only or mutating, what the verdict looks like (boolean, score, violating context IDs), or what happens when the answer fails the check. Only the guardrail framing implies it is a non-destructive check.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the tool's role is stated before the technical qualifier. The 'Tribunal Router (Mathematical Anti-Hallucination Guardrail)' prefix is somewhat ornamental but short.

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?

With five parameters, three required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the result shape and failure semantics but does not. An agent can form the call but cannot anticipate what a verification outcome contains.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that llm_answer is the candidate text and context_ids are the retrieved anchors, and the 'geodesic boundaries' language gives loose context for check_geodesic and max_distance_threshold, which the schema leaves undescribed.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and a specific resource (an LLM answer against retrieved context IDs), and the 'anti-hallucination guardrail' framing makes the intent unmistakable against siblings like search or analyze_geometry. It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, and the 'entailment cones / geodesic boundaries' jargon obscures rather than sharpens the purpose.

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 versus alternatives such as hyperspace_get_trust_score or hyperspace_analyze_geometry, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that context_ids must come from a prior search). The agent must infer that this is a post-generation validation step.

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