cb_verdict

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

Given the annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false (write operation), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: '只记录' (only record) and '不执行 promote/discard' clarify the exact scope of action, preventing confusion with promotion or rejection. It does not detail append vs. overwrite behavior, but for a straightforward write tool this is acceptable.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a critical qualifier ('只记录，不执行 promote/discard') immediately. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple write tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the primary behavior and scope. It doesn't mention edge cases like file existence or formatting, but these are not essential for correct invocation. The context is complete enough for an agent to use the tool appropriately.

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 each parameter described (root, name, from_file). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not explain relationships between parameters, but none are needed given the schema's clarity.

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 states a specific verb ('回流', meaning to feed back), a precise resource ('分支 VERDICT.md'), and explicitly notes it only records and does not execute promote/discard. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cb_promote and cb_discard without requiring schema inspection.

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 its use case: when external test conclusions need to be written to a branch's VERDICT.md. It explicitly excludes promote/discard actions, which provides a boundary against those siblings, though it doesn't enumerate alternative tools or explicit conditions for when to choose it over others like cb_note.

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