reverify_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes re-hashing artifacts and metric reproduction, and notes the consequence of blocking promotion. It does not mention authorization, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond verification.

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 front-load the key term 'Deep re-verification' and efficiently convey purpose and consequence without extraneous details.

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 the 3 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain how parameters relate to the tool's operation. It does not define runId, testId, or hypothesisId, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameters. The agent must infer meaning from parameter names only (runId, testId, hypothesisId), which is insufficient 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 it performs deep re-verification by re-hashing raw artifacts and confirming metrics reproduce. It distinguishes from siblings like benchmark_run or test_hypothesis by focusing on verification rather than initial execution.

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 usage when promotion is needed after a test, noting that promotion is blocked until this passes. It provides context for anti-benchmark-gaming but does not explicitly exclude when not to use or list alternatives among siblings.

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