gk_verify

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does reveal that an unknown action returns the allowed action list, and it notes the exact number of actions (11). However, it does not explain side effects, permissions, or what each action actually does, leaving much of the behavioral profile undisclosed.

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 extremely compact, using two sentences to convey the action list, parameter usage, error behavior, and a design rationale. There is no wasted wording; every phrase adds value. The listing format is easy to scan.

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?

While an output schema exists (reducing the need to explain returns), the description is incomplete for selecting among 11 actions. Terms like 'competitor', 'compare', and 'probe' are ambiguous without details. The parenthetical 'short stage_board' for 'exit' is cryptic. The token-saving strategy sacrifices clarity needed for correct action selection.

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 schema is bare (0% coverage, no enums). The description compensates by instructing 'Pass action= and optional args={}', clarifying that 'args' is an optional object. It also enumerates the accepted action values, which is essential for invoking the tool correctly. It does not detail per-action args, but it adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Verification:' which identifies the tool's domain, then lists 11 concrete actions (bundle, exit, soak, probe, etc.). This provides a clear overview and distinguishes gk_verify from sibling tools like gk_code or gk_scan. However, it lacks a single verb+resource phrase and uses a noun phrase instead of an explicit verb.

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 'Verification:' prefix implies the tool is for verification tasks, and the action list suggests when to use it (e.g., when you need to bundle or probe). But it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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