falsify_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal that probes are fresh and uncached (likely meaning repeated live execution against the target, with cost and non-determinism), but it never states side effects, whether the claim's state changes, what happens on inconclusive results, or any rate/permission constraints for a tool that appears to run live probes.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why key semantics are missing rather than a model of well-structured brevity.

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?

Placeholder — see justification correction below.

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 and does not. Neither claim_id nor repeats is explained; in particular the meaning of repeats (default 3) — how many probe attempts per falsification run, and whether they must all fail to falsify — is left entirely opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('falsify a claim') and adds a mechanism note ('fresh, uncached probes'), which distinguishes it from propose_claim and list_claims. However, it does not explicitly contrast with adjacent tools like suggest_probes or check_rules, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

There is no statement of when to prefer this over suggest_probes, check_rules, or audit_verify, and no preconditions (e.g. the claim must exist and be in a falsifiable state). The only usage signal is the implied 'use this to test a claim', which an agent must infer.

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