log_verdict

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a non-obvious trait: logs modified before `since` are 'refused as a reason, not silently judged,' including a Windows file-lock nuance. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the refusal behavior is genuinely informative beyond the schema.

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, stating purpose in the first sentence and then concentrating all nuance into one focused paragraph about `since`. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

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 core behavior and the subtle `since` behavior are covered well, and an output schema exists so return-format details are not required. Still, `source` is under-specified and there is no cross-tool guidance, leaving the description slightly incomplete for self-contained agent use.

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 description adds real meaning to `since` by tying it to a run and explaining the cutoff behavior, which compensates for 0% schema coverage. However, `source` is only echoed as a placeholder and never given semantic meaning or expected values, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Judge the newest log for `source`.' It is clear that this tool evaluates a log, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as log_tail or client_verdict, and the exact meaning of 'judge' is left implicit.

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 gives useful workflow context for `since`, noting it is 'typically the value `server_start` returned,' and explains the consequence of a too-old log. However, it never explicitly says when to call this tool instead of alternatives like log_tail or client_verdict; usage is implied rather than stated.

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