output_assert_since

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description aligns with a non-mutating operation. However, the description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, error conditions, or limitations beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Single sentence front-loads the action, contains no filler, and is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too minimal to be fully complete. It lacks details on parameter usage, expected patterns, and behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, yet the description explains none of the five parameters individually. It hints at 'required' and 'forbidden' but omits 'checkpoint', 'regex', and 'max_matches'. This fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'assert' and clearly identifies the resource 'required and forbidden output patterns since a checkpoint'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_output and get_output by focusing on assertion rather than retrieval.

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?

Description implies usage for verifying output patterns relative to a checkpoint but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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