Verify task acceptance criteria

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive but state-changing call. The description adds the meaningful caveat that CLI success is not verification and that client review is client-reported, but it doesn't explain what state is mutated, whether prior verification is replaced, or what permissions are needed.

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 compact clauses with the core action front-loaded and the caveat trailing. No filler, though the sentence rhythm reads as a list of assertions rather than a structured statement of prerequisites and behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing for a required-hash, criteria-based verification call is the meaning of expectedSha256 and taskId, so the definition is adequate but not complete.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It gestures at the reviews structure ('ground Codex review quotes in file lines', 'criteria defined before the task') but says nothing about taskId or the required expectedSha256 pin, leaving the two required parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific action (check artifacts, ground review quotes in file lines) against a named resource (task acceptance criteria), so an agent understands this tool validates evidence rather than producing it. It stops short of differentiating explicitly from siblings like antigravity_test or antigravity_record_test, leaving some overlap to inference.

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?

It gives one prerequisite ('Requires criteria defined before the task') and a negative boundary ('A CLI SUCCESS or unsupported claim is not verification'), which is useful context. However, it never says when to call this versus antigravity_test, antigravity_record_test, or antigravity_read_result, so the routing decision is only implied.

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