agent_verify_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Verify' and 'Detects' imply a read-only diagnostic, and naming the concrete failure modes adds real value beyond what the schema provides. However, it does not confirm it is non-mutating, does not describe what gets reported, and says nothing about permissions.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, with no filler. Size is well matched to a single-parameter verification tool.

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 one-parameter verify tool with no output schema and no annotations, the agent learns what is checked but not what the result looks like, whether it is read-only, or how it relates to repair/status siblings. Adequate but with clear 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% and the single parameter (agent_id) is never mentioned in the description; only the vague phrase 'for an agent' hints at it. With low coverage the description should compensate but does not, so it adds essentially nothing over the bare schema property name.

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?

States a specific verb ('Verify') plus a precise resource ('task lifecycle consistency for an agent'), and the second sentence enumerates exactly what it looks for (broken active-task pointers, orphan working-memory files). This clearly separates it from mutations like agent_repair_state, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the adjacent agent_status/agent_active_task tools.

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 a diagnostic use case but never states when to reach for this tool versus agent_status, agent_active_task, or agent_repair_state. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no conditions that select it. The detection clause hints at intent but leaves routing entirely to inference.

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