doubt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains the iterative behavior, convergence condition, hard ceiling on max_passes, and the role of context. It also lists return fields, giving a clear picture of what the tool produces.

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 well-structured: a concise overview, followed by clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core concept.

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 (iterative doubt resolution, 3 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers behavior, parameter semantics, return format, and usage context. No gaps are apparent.

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 0%, but the description fully documents all three parameters in the Args section. It adds meaning beyond the schema: prompt is the task/plan, context is real evidence, max_passes is the convergence ceiling clamped to 20. This is comprehensive.

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: to doubt every decision in a plan, iteratively resolve doubts with evidence, and converge on a hardened plan. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from siblings (ground, verdict) by its iterative doubt-resolution process.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: for hardening plans against doubts. It specifies how to use context (codebase for code doubts, Exa for world doubts) and to flag for human when needed. It mentions the hard ceiling of 20 passes. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where alternatives like ground or verdict would be more appropriate.

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