Get one repair packet (least-proven or a specific claim)

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

The description explains the run modes (auto/never/always) and the reuse of cached command results, which goes beyond what the annotations convey. The annotations already provide idempotent/decent safety hints, and the description adds meaningful execution behavior without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the primary operation first, then the default selection behavior, then the run modes. Every sentence contributes necessary information without padding.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers the core semantics of the tool well, including the least-proven default and run behavior. It does not elaborate on the shape of a repair packet or error cases, but those are not essential for selecting and invoking the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, with run lacking a description; the description remedies this by explaining all three run enum values and their effect. It also clarifies the default behavior when claimId is absent, adding value beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 it returns a single repair packet, with a concrete default (the least-proven claim) and an optional claimId override. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools proofrail_verify and proofrail_recheck, but the resource and focus are clear enough to distinguish it from them.

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 the tool is used by referencing results 'cached by an earlier verify/recheck', which situates it in a workflow. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over proofrail_verify or proofrail_recheck, or when not to use it.

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