verdigraph__verify_brain

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

With no annotations, the description explains the verification process: recompute and compare identifiers, returning valid=true only if all match. This discloses deterministic recomputation behavior, though side effects (none expected) and auth needs are absent.

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 has a verbose brand tagline in brackets, then a functional sentence. It is two sentences but wastes words on branding. Overall adequate but not optimally concise.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on return structure (beyond valid boolean), error handling, and the VB3 reference is jargon. It is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter explanations. It mentions 'content', 'brain_id', 'content_hash' indirectly but does not map to schema fields or explain 'format' default. The description adds no value over the empty schema.

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 verifies a cognition claim by recomputing a brain from content and comparing against claimed identifiers. The verb 'Machine-check' and specific resource 'brain' with comparison logic distinguishes it from siblings like 'verdigraph__build_brain'.

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 verification use (after building a brain), but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling context makes the differentiation clear, so it's nearly explicit.

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