verify_text_intent

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

No annotations provided. Description reveals it returns JSON with score, passed, reason, and correction_suggestion, which implies inference without side effects. However, it does not explicitly state whether it's read-only or if it has any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Description is relatively concise, with parameter list and return format. Could be slightly more compact, but no wasted sentences.

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?

Has output schema (though not shown), and description covers return fields adequately. Missing usage guidelines reduces completeness. For a simple 3-parameter tool, it's sufficient but not thorough.

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 documentation coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does so: text is 'the text to verify', intent_description is 'what the text should convey', threshold is 'minimum entailment score' with default. This adds meaningful context beyond schema structure.

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?

Description clearly states 'Check whether text satisfies a semantic intent using NLI.' Specifies verb, resource, and method (NLI). No sibling tools, so differentiation is not needed.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The description solely explains what it does without usage context.

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