verify_build_report

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, persistence, or output behavior. The term 'Create' suggests a side effect but is not elaborated, leaving ambiguity.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and a quick differentiation. It could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (8 optional parameters), the description fails to explain return values or usage context. More details are needed to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the meaning of the eight parameters is entirely unclear. The vague references to bbox, mass, etc., do not adequately map to the parameters.

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 creates a structured verification report and distinguishes itself from verify_against_spec by mentioning bbox as a hard check and other fields as advisory. However, it does not fully define what a 'structured verification report' entails.

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 a usage scenario by comparing to verify_against_spec but lacks explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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