verification_summary

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (dict with task_id, session_id, totals, steps) and implies a read-only operation by describing the output. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for an aggregation tool, this is largely sufficient.

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 extremely concise: three sentences with no filler. First sentence states purpose, second adds optional behavior, third lists return fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite an existing output schema (known from signals), the description still lists return fields, providing context. It covers filtering behavior and basic aggregation. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'aggregated step verification results' entails, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for session_id (filtering behavior) but provides no description for task_id, the required parameter. This is a significant gap given the absence of schema descriptions.

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 it returns aggregated step verification results for a task, specifying the resource (task verifications) and action (aggregated summary). The name 'verification_summary' aligns with this purpose, and it is distinct from siblings like verify_step which likely handles individual steps.

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?

It provides a condition for using the optional session_id parameter ('If session_id is provided, only steps from that session are included'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like verify_step or review_verdict. Usage context is implied but lacks explicit guidance.

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