verify_brief

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a batch check and gate output but does not clarify whether it is read-only or if it modifies state. The term '제출 전 체크리스트' suggests a pre-submission checklist, but side effects are unclear.

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 a single sentence covering multiple facets, which is efficient. However, it is somewhat cryptic with terms like '게이트(통과/보류/키없음)', which could be clearer.

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 tool's complexity (batch verification, checklist, gate output) and no output schema, the description lacks details on the return values, the gate mechanism, and what 'key' means. 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by indicating the parameter 'text_or_path' is the document or matrix for verification. However, it does not specify the exact format (e.g., string content or file path), leaving some ambiguity.

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 specifies batch verification of articles and case numbers in a document or matrix, plus a checklist and gate. This differentiates it from sibling single-verification tools like verify_article or verify_case, though the term 'gate' and 'key' are somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It implies batch verification but does not state when to prefer it over single-verification tools or other sibling tools.

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