Verify Implementation

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

Annotations indicate not read-only and not destructive. Description adds that it logs results as an implementation note, which is a side effect. No contradictions. Adds useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then adds details and side effect. No wasted words, efficiently conveys essential information.

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 the tool's complexity and no output schema, the description adequately covers return format (pass/fail per item with reasoning and score) and side effect (logging). No missing critical information.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool verifies implementation against intent spec, checking outcomes, constraints, rules, and edge cases, and returns pass/fail with reasoning and overall score. This distinguishes it from siblings like log_implementation_note.

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 use for verification but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide caveats. Given siblings like create_evidence and analyze_intent_graph, some guidance would help, but the purpose is clear enough.

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