verify_backend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return contract ("OK" vs. an error describing what is missing or unreachable), which is genuinely useful. It does not say whether the probe mutates anything, how long it may block on an unreachable backend, or whether it requires credentials.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and no filler. The return-value clause is load-bearing rather than padding. Slightly below 5 only because the return contract could be stated more crisply in one clause.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it inspects and what it returns on success and failure. The remaining gap is operational (timeouts, side effects), which matters less for an evidently read-only probe.

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 100% and the single parameter is a documented enum of four backend names, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no semantics beyond it — nothing about the difference between checking configuration versus reachability, or what the enum members imply.

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 and resource: 'Probe a backend's configuration and reachability.' That distinguishes it from list_backends (enumeration), query_backend (querying), and run_prover (execution) without needing the schema. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: a probe that returns 'OK' or an error explains what is missing reads as a pre-flight/diagnostic check. There is no explicit 'use this before run_prover' or 'use query_backend instead when...' guidance, leaving the agent to infer when to reach for it.

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