self_verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the run is deterministic and terminates only when every concrete goal score exceeds target_score. It does not disclose cost/duration, what evidence is emitted, or what happens if the threshold is never met.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the termination condition front-loaded as the second sentence. Slightly terse given the tool's complexity, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a five-parameter, non-idempotent, state-writing tool with no output schema, the description covers the core control flow but omits what evidence is produced and whether state is persisted by default. Adequate to invoke, not adequate to predict the result.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces target_score as an exclusive per-goal threshold ('greater than target_score') and implies seed-driven determinism, but adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action, "Run one complete deterministic self-verification evidence pass," but what is being verified (code, docs, contracts) and what the output looks like are never stated. It is distinguishable from self_verify_history/promote only by implication of 'one ... pass', not by explicit contrast.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as self_verify_candidates, self_verify_compare, or self_verify_history, even though those siblings clearly overlap. The agent must infer the scenario from the name alone.

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