run_acceptance

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the error contract ('An unreadable target is reported as error, never a silent pass'), determinism of the verdict, and the provenance.source carried by failing/errored checks. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, then error semantics, then prerequisites. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parentheticals are compact rather than redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description adequately covers the return contract (per-check pass/fail/error verdict, provenance.source). Combined with the stated prerequisite (load_acceptance) and target-state requirement, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (session) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the default 'default' value. The description adds nothing about the session parameter, which is acceptable given full coverage but not additive; baseline 3.

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 (Evaluate) and resource (loaded AcceptanceSpec against live silicon state) with a concrete output shape (deterministic pass/fail/error verdict per check). It self-labels as 'the closed-loop judge', which distinguishes it from siblings like run_scenario, run_acceptance_iteration, and start_acceptance_loop.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites: 'Run load_acceptance first; halt the target at the state you want to assert.' This tells the agent the ordering and the required target state. It does not explicitly contrast itself with run_acceptance_iteration/start_acceptance_loop, so it falls short of naming the alternative condition.

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