Sanity-check current reasoning

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond these by naming the categories of failure the tool inspects, giving the agent a concrete sense of what the tool evaluates. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates its detection targets without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameters are already documented in the schema.

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?

The description is adequate for understanding what the tool inspects, and the schema covers all parameters clearly. However, with no output schema, the description does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., a list of findings, a pass/fail result), which is a notable gap for an agent deciding how to use 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%, with each parameter already documented meaningfully (attempts, evidence, reasoning, sessionId). The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail, but because the schema carries the burden, no further compensation is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Detect') and enumerates the exact pathologies it looks for: repeated failed strategies, contradictions, unsupported conclusions, untested success claims, and premature rewrites. This clearly states the resource being analyzed (reasoning and session history). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling analysis tools, but its function is unique enough to be identifiable.

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 implies when to use the tool by referencing 'supplied reasoning and session history', which tells the agent what input should accompany the call. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives like ackrite, verify, audit, or prove_it are better suited for.

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