define_verb

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'register' without explaining side effects, what happens if the verb already exists, whether the tool is destructive, or any authorization needs. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies state.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and a key optional note. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 the complexity (4 parameters, no schema descriptions, output schema exists but unmentioned), the description is too brief. It lacks details on return values, role structure, valid inputs, and behavioral constraints. The agent would likely need to guess about proper usage of optional/obligatory arrays.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names. It mentions 'which roles it takes' but does not explain the 'optional' and 'obligatory' arrays or their interaction. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not clarify parameter semantics beyond what the names 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?

The description explicitly states 'Register a situation type (verb) and which roles it takes.' This is a clear, specific verb+resource definition. It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'assert_situation' by noting that assert_situation can auto-register unknown verbs.

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 an explicit alternative: 'Optional: assert_situation auto-registers unknown verbs permissively.' This tells agents when to use this tool (explicit registration) versus the sibling. However, it does not give any when-not-to-use advice or prerequisites.

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