gunkit_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing. The phrase 'the worst gap a clip, cm' hints that the tool reports a maximum deviation in centimeters, which is a small scrap of output/behavioral context, but permissions, side effects, and whether it mutates rig state are all unstated.

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?

It is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. The garbled, comma-spliced phrasing ('the worst gap a clip, cm') is hard to parse and buries any usable signal behind unexplained jargon.

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 1-required-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry everything: what it verifies, what 'facts' is, and what a result looks like. It provides none of this, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call.

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% for the single required parameter 'facts', and the description never explains what 'facts' means, its format, or where it comes from (gunkit_draft? gunkit_actions? rig_facts?). Nothing compensates for the schema 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 sentence gestures at a verification action ('read back from Blender against the timeline's sums') but the noun-phrase fragments ('the gun's own clips', 'the worst gap a clip, cm') never resolve into a clear verb+resource statement. It is not a pure tautology of the name, but an agent cannot confidently say what gunkit_verify actually does or how it differs from gate_verdict, contract_check, or spec_validate.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative among the ~60 siblings (gate_*, contract_check, spec_validate all plausibly overlap). The description offers no condition under which this tool should be selected over those.

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