list_verification_backends_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (listing backends) and adds specific content details (which predicates and constraint types are shown). This provides a clear picture of the tool's output. There is no mention of side effects or edge cases, but for a read-only list operation, the description is adequately 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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the core action ('List available verification backends') and then supplements with specific details. Every word provides value; there is no fluff 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns (backend capabilities, predicates, constraint types). There is no missing context that would hinder an agent from invoking it correctly, given its simple nature.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides no parameter details. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no redundant information. There is no gap to compensate for.

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 function: listing available verification backends and their capabilities. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('verification backends'), and the additional detail about find/avoid predicates and constraint types differentiates it from sibling tools that run tests or analyze regions.

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 its usage—to discover backend capabilities—but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. For a simple listing tool, the context is somewhat clear, but there is no explicit guidance about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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