verify_step

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it records outcomes (mutating), expects certain parameters, and returns a dict with specific fields. It does not mention authorization or side effects, but the return type is well documented.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and uses bullet points for parameter details. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers input parameters, return fields, and usage context. It is complete for a logging/verification tool with no missing context.

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%, but the description provides detailed meaning for each parameter: step_index is 0-based, step_description is a short label, reason is one-line justification, verdict must be one of PASS/FAIL/SKIP. This goes far beyond the schema's titles.

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 'Record the outcome of a plan step verification' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'review_verdict' and 'verification_summary' by focusing on individual step verification during a task.

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 explicitly says 'Call this after completing each major step in a task', providing clear context for when to use. It also specifies required verdict values but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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