verify_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is an 'end-of-output verification hook' (implies non-destructive, reading action), but does not explicitly state whether it modifies data, requires special permissions, or has side effects. The behavioral disclosure is incomplete but not misleading.

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, efficient Korean sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded but could benefit from slight elaboration on output or usage.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description should cover behavior, input expectations, and output format. It explains input expectations vaguely and omits output structure (e.g., verification results). The tool is part of a legal verification suite but lacks critical context for autonomous use.

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%, and the description adds minimal value. It indicates the text parameter should contain case numbers and law articles, but offers no format details, constraints, or examples. The single parameter remains underdocumented.

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 the tool extracts and batch verifies case numbers and law article references from text. It identifies a specific use case ('end-of-output verification hook') that helps distinguish it from sibling tools like verify_article or verify_case. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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, no exclusion criteria, and no prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection.

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