record_verdict

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

The description details the fresh-context mechanism and two coercion rules (score <0.7 and needs_lab with no evidence). Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits.

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 detailed and well-structured, with clear sections for purpose, mechanism, and parameter options. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value.

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 6 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and coercion rules but omits details on module_id, gaps, and probe_followups. Adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The description adds meaning for verdict_source (explaining its two values) and for passed/score via coercion rules, but does not explain module_id, gaps, or probe_followups. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.

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's purpose: 'record the cold examiner's verdict.' It explains the context of a fresh-context examiner subagent and differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on verdict recording.

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 explicit guidance on verdict_source, recommending 'fresh-context' and discouraging 'same-context,' and notes that status() flags matches backed only by same-context. This helps the agent decide when to use each option.

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