verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool 'run[s] every gate' and reports pass/block status, but doesn't mention side effects (e.g., does it modify the sheet?), permissions needed, failure modes, or performance implications (e.g., is it expensive for many gates?).

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates core purpose. Could arguably be more specific (e.g., defining 'gate'), but is not verbose or wasteful.

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate for basic use. However, given absence of annotations and output schema, the description could better explain what 'passes' vs 'blocks' means in the return format to compensate.

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?

The schema already has 100% description coverage defining 'sheet' as 'A cut sheet handle', so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add further parameter semantics (e.g., what a valid handle looks like), but the schema is sufficient for this single parameter.

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 uses specific verbs ('run every gate') and identifies the domain ('cut sheet'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like 'inspect' or 'draft'. However, it doesn't explain what a 'gate' is, which slightly reduces clarity for agents unfamiliar with the domain jargon.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'inspect' (which might also analyze a sheet) or 'draft'. It implies verification use via 'report what passes and what blocks' but lacks exclusions or comparative context.

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