reverify_run

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses re-hashing and metric confirmation, but omits whether operations are read-only, required permissions, or failure consequences. Partially informative.

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?

Two concise sentences with clear purpose and context, front-loaded and efficient. Lacks parameter descriptions, but overall structure is good.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description is incomplete. Does not explain return values or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a verification tool.

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 0%, and description only mentions 'full test' and 'hypothesis' indirectly. Does not explain runId (required), testId, or hypothesisId. Fails to add meaning beyond schema.

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 re-hashes raw artifacts behind a full test to confirm metrics reproduce, with a specific purpose of blocking promotion to prevent benchmark gaming. It distinguishes itself from siblings like benchmark_run or test_hypothesis by focusing on verification.

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 use when promotion is blocked or for anti-gaming, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like execute_full_test or test_hypothesis. Lacks exclusions or explicit context.

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