verify_intent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the closing 'Read-only and offline' adds nothing. The valuable additions are semantic: claims resolve to verified/violated/undecided, undecided is never counted as verified, and prose is never interpreted – behaviors not inferable from the annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the verdict semantics immediately following. The trailing 'Read-only and offline' is redundant with the annotations and is the only wasted clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the three verdicts and the undecided-for-coverage rule. Input format and the non-interpretation of prose are also covered. Only the path parameter's role and any relationship to sibling tools are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both intent and path are already documented. The description restates the intent format (JSON or fenced intent blocks) without adding syntax details beyond the schema, and says nothing about the path parameter. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Verify declared intent against audit evidence') and enumerates the claim kinds and the three possible verdicts, so the agent knows exactly what the operation produces. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as verify_changes or review_changes, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool applies when the caller has a declared intent document ('Intent is declared JSON or a fenced ```intent block'), and the description rules out prose. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over verify_changes or review_changes, and no exclusion criteria.

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