verify

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

The description explicitly discloses that executing repro.script as arbitrary code with no sandbox carries security risk, and that it requires a permission flag. This is critical behavioral information beyond what annotations would provide (and no annotations are present, so the description carries full burden). It also states the refusal condition, fully disclosing the tool's execution 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 three sentences long, with the most critical information (execution risk and requirement) front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: what it does, the critical requirement, and the trust caveat. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the dangerous execution behavior, the mandatory flag, and a safety warning. The only minor gap is not describing the return value, but since there's no output schema, the description could have stated what it returns; however, the primary usage risks are fully covered, and the tool is a verification action where the result is likely self-evident. Given the high stakes, this is comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's type and purpose. The description adds clarifications: allow_execution must be true and is required, claim and claim_path are alternatives for specifying the claim. It doesn't add syntax examples or detailed formats, but given the schema is complete, this is adequate. The description reinforces the critical flag without redundancy.

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 performs 'full verification of a claim' and explicitly mentions executing its repro.script as arbitrary code with no sandbox, which is a specific, high-stakes action. It also names its core requirement (allow_execution=true) and contrasts with siblings like validate and self_test by emphasizing execution, distinguishing it clearly.

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 includes explicit conditions: 'REQUIRES allow_execution=true; otherwise refused' and 'Only call this on claims you trust.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like validate or self_test as safer options. The context is strong enough for an agent to infer the trade-offs, but a direct comparison would improve it.

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