reef_verify

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces that it is read-only and does not run diagnostics. No contradictions. Adds behavioral context about combining multiple state elements, but no additional depth beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words. Efficient and to the point.

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 9 parameters with no description coverage, the description is incomplete. An output schema exists, but without parameter semantics or usage guidance, the tool cannot be confidently invoked 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 description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the 9 parameters, leaving their semantics entirely unclear. Even though schema provides constraints, the lack of textual description forces the agent to guess parameter purposes.

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's purpose: 'Thin Reef verification query' that combines multiple state elements. It distinguishes itself from other tools by specifying it is read-only and does not run diagnostics, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it is read-only, implying no side effects, but lacks context on typical usage scenarios or when to prefer it over similar tools like verification_state.

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