client_verdict

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

The description discloses key behaviors, such as ignoring script logs because they may not exist in certain builds, and that old reports (before 'since') are refused rather than silently judged. It does not mention any side effects or detailed file-handling logic, but the core decision-making is 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?

The description is excessively verbose and repetitive, circling around the script log vs. RPT distinction multiple times. A more concise structure would improve readability without losing key information.

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 the main purpose and parameter semantics, but it does not describe the output/verdict format or possible values. Given the output schema is not shown, the user is left guessing what the tool actually returns.

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?

Although the schema provides no description for 'since', the tool text thoroughly explains its meaning and how to use it (pass the timestamp from client_start). This compensates for the schema gap, though the explanation could be more concise.

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 judges the running or last client based on its .RPT file, and it differentiates itself from log_verdict for compile checks. However, it gets bogged down in caveats about script logs, making the primary purpose slightly less immediate.

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?

It explicitly contrasts with log_verdict(source='client') and explains when to use this tool (for the live client) versus the alternative. It also gives concrete guidance on the 'since' parameter by instructing to pass the value returned from client_start, making the intended usage clear.

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