run_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and succeeds: it states the 0-100 score range, default threshold 80, degrade_band default 10, the exact failing interval [th-band, th), the three verdict outcomes, writeback to quality_score, and the evaluator default. This is unusually transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with the core purpose, then packs decision logic, defaults, side effects, and usage routing into a few dense sentences. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 moderate 6-parameter gate tool with no output schema, the description covers the scoring logic, verdict semantics, defaults, writeback, and downstream usage. The only minor gap is an explicit statement of the return format, but the outcome descriptions are detailed enough for an agent to act on the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: the passing/failing decision rule, the interval formula for degraded release, default values, and the quality_score writeback behavior tied to task_id. It extends the schema without repeating it verbatim.

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 opens with '质量门禁' and specifies a clear verb+resource pair: an LLM-as-judge scores an artifact against criteria. It also differentiates itself from plain LLM execution siblings by framing the tool as a downstream quality gate, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly states '可作任务下游 gate', giving a concrete when-to-use context: after a task produces an artifact, this tool can gate it. It does not name sibling alternatives or give when-not-to-use exclusions, which keeps this from a 5.

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