reverify_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the verification process and the consequence (blocking promotion), but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or whether it modifies state. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and the second adds consequence and motivation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose and consequence but fails to document parameters, which are essential for a tool with 3 params and no output schema. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete.

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% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (runId, testId, hypothesisId). The required runId is not mentioned, and optional parameters are ignored. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 the tool's purpose: 'deep re-verification' by re-hashing raw artifacts and confirming metrics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly linking to promotion blocking and anti-gaming, which is a unique use case.

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 when to use this tool: before promotion ('promotion is blocked until this passes'). It provides context (anti-benchmark gaming) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like test_hypothesis.

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