inquisitor_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'validate', without indicating whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, requires prior investigation steps, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a validation tool.

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 at one sentence, but it is overly terse. It earns its place by stating the purpose, but fails to provide necessary details that could be added without significant length. A balanced description would include parameter context and usage hints.

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 the tool has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the validation entails, how to use the parameters, or what the output represents. The agent cannot effectively use this tool from the description alone.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not mention any parameters or their roles. Parameters like 'project_path', 'session_name', and 'original_definitions' are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to correctly invoke the tool.

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 verb 'validate' and the resources 'investigation findings' and 'original problem definitions', giving a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like inquisitor_analyze or inquisitor_trace, which could have overlapping functionality.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single sentence with no explicit instructions on prerequisites, workflow context, or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the name and purpose.

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