jan3_verify

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 key behaviors: persisting the session, multi-account nature, and a 0o600 permission. However, it does not detail what happens on invalid OTP, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting), or authorization needs. Adequate but incomplete.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function, the second instructs the agent's action, and the third outlines the expected follow-up. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 verification tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, effect, and next step. It lacks error handling or retry guidance, but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. Good completeness given the minimal annotations.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context by instructing to ask for the 6-digit code, but does not provide new meaning or constraints beyond the schema's existing descriptions. Baseline score of 3 applies per rubric.

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's purpose: to verify the OTP emailed by jan3_login and persist the JAN3 session. It uses specific verbs ('Verify', 'persist') and explicitly mentions the resource (OTP, email). It also distinguishes from siblings like jan3_login and jan3_login_complete by detailing the follow-up action.

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 provides clear context by instructing the agent to ask the user for the 6-digit code from their email, implying it is used after jan3_login. It also mentions the next step (offering Lightning Address opt-in), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or direct comparisons with alternative tools. However, the sibling list helps inference.

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