Verify declared evidence

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies that only bounded local sources are considered, states the exact outcome categories ('verified-within-scope, contradicted, stale, inconclusive, unsupported'), and emphasizes per-statement scope. This is substantial transparency for an annotation-backed tool.

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 two efficient, front-loaded sentences. The main action and scope appear first, followed by the useful result-state taxonomy. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains what is evaluated, which sources are considered, and the possible result states. The only minor gap is that 'bounded local sources' and 'selected statement' are not precisely delimited, but the provided outcomes mitigate the absence of an output schema.

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?

There is only one parameter, `projectDir`, and its schema description covers it 100%, including the default behavior. The tool description does not need to add parameter-level detail; 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 states a specific verb ('Evaluate'), a specific resource (`.docguard-evidence.json`), and a defined scope ('bounded local sources'). It also enumerates distinct result states, which separates it from the sibling `docguard_verify_claims` by focusing on evidence-file verification rather than general claim verification.

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 this tool is for verifying declared evidence against local sources)Skip, and notes that verification applies only to each selected statement. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like `docguard_verify_claims` or `docguard_guard`, nor any exclusions or alternative routing.

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