verify_run

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 return values (gate, breaches, signed run record) but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether it writes or stores anything), permission requirements, or error behavior. This is some behavioral context but incomplete for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 reasonably concise, with the purpose front-loaded and parameters broken into clear lines. It avoids redundant wording and communicates the key return values efficiently, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format details are not strictly required, and the description already provides a high-level return summary. However, given the six-parameter complexity and lack of annotations, the description should explain all parameters and ideally differentiate usage from siblings. It covers the core purpose but leaves several parameters and usage guidance gaps.

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. It explains trace (format: JSON-RPC messages as JSON Lines) and policy (format: YAML/JSON text or path), which is useful. However, it does not explain run_id, system, started_at, or system_version, leaving 4 of 6 parameters undocumented in both schema and description. This is a significant 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 verifies an MCP execution trace against an execution policy and returns the run record with gate, breaches, and signed record. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools verify_answer and verify_records, which target different resources.

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 by specifying it is for verifying execution traces, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like verify_answer or verify_records, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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