verify_with_orchestrator_tool

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the budget escalation chain (10s → 30s → 120s) and the return shape (aggregated result with iteration history). This goes beyond simple 'run verification' but does not cover permissions, side effects, or error behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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 7 parameters with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It explains the overall flow and return type but leaves parameter semantics and usage context entirely unaddressed, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the 7 parameters (entry, backend, findKind, findValue, constraints, targetBinary, maxIterations). It does not mention a single parameter, leaving the schema's titles and defaults as the only guidance. This is a critical gap.

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 runs the CEGAR verification orchestrator with budget escalation, mentioning specific budget values (10s → 30s → 120s). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_property_tool, which likely does single-shot verification.

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 usage for verification with progressively larger budgets, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_property_tool or list_verification_backends_tool. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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