verify_beliefs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the checks performed and output location (writes artifacts to vault/verification/), but does not mention whether beliefs are read-only, permissions required, or potential side effects like locking.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a bullet list of checks. Every line adds value, with no redundancy, but could be slightly more structured with a note on return value.

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 no-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the core function but omits what happens after writing artifacts (e.g., return value or output schema usage). It also lacks prerequisites like existing beliefs, making it somewhat incomplete for a first-time user.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description correctly indicates no inputs are needed by stating it runs on 'all beliefs'. Schema coverage is 100% by default, and the description adds no further semantic detail, meeting the baseline of 4.

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 states it runs a full verification pass on all beliefs, listing specific checks like staleness and contradictions. While it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'verify_provenance' by focusing on internal consistency, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'compile_beliefs' or 'refresh_beliefs'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'eicv_verify_claim' for single claims or 'verify_and_repair' for fix operations. Usage context is merely implied by the tool's name.

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