Re-run only what one claim needs and report whether it is now proven

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it re-executes manifest commands, re-resolves anchors, gates success on a specific score threshold (1.0), and returns a follow-up recommendation (the next least-proven claim). It also discloses the advisory Jev behavior via the schema parameter description. It omits failure-mode behavior (e.g., unresolvable anchors), but the core execution semantics are transparent.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The core scoping claim ('Re-run just the manifest commands referenced by the given claim') is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds only the loop-continuation value. The title also carries distinct meaning rather than echoing the name.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the key return elements (satisfied=true at score 1.0, the next least-proven claim). The three parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the projectRoot constraint. Minor gaps remain — response shape beyond 'satisfied', and error behavior when a claim cannot reach score 1.0 — but the description is largely complete for its complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description need not restate parameters. The description does add light semantic linkage ('given claim' → claimId, 'configured local Jev command' → jev), but no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. That is exactly the baseline case.

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 verb ('re-run'), a precise resource ('manifest commands referenced by the given claim'), a defined success criterion ('satisfied=true when the claim reaches score 1.0'), and a distinguishing scope ('only what one claim needs'). The title reinforces the 'recheck one claim' scope, which clearly separates it from siblings proofrail_verify and proofrail_focus.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: the word 'just' contrasts with broader verification, and 'so the loop can continue' hints at an iterative workflow. However, no sibling is named, and there are no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use conditions or explicit alternatives. The agent must infer the decision boundary from the scoping language.

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