verify_finding

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

Without annotations, the description reveals some behavioral traits: it re-runs a template 2-3 times within the same session. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, destructive actions, or authorization requirements beyond implying session existence. The description is moderately transparent but lacks depth.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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 complexity of four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain key concepts like finding_index or scan_run_id, and while an output schema exists, the description offers no context on return values or verification outcomes.

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 does not mention any parameters, despite the schema having four (rounds, session_id, scan_run_id, finding_index) with zero description coverage. It fails to explain what these parameters represent or how they relate to the tool's operation, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 specific action: re-running exactly one Nuclei template multiple times within an authorized session. It uses a specific verb ('re-run') and resource ('Nuclei template'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like discover_surface or scan_high_signal.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., preflight_target, verify_origin_candidate). It does not specify prerequisites, such as requiring an existing finding to verify, or when not to use it.

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