completion_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'builds' a brief, but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it persists anything, requires special permissions, or has side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, though the unexplained 'AV/1' jargon slightly reduces clarity.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral transparency. For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations, this is incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely maps 'optional observed change set' to changed_paths, but slice_id is not explained at all, and the relationship between the described inputs and the parameters is left implicit.

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 states a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('AV/1 adversarial verification brief') and names the input sources. It is clear about what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like verify_slice.

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 implies the tool is used after DONE claims and evidence have been persisted, and optionally with a changed set. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as verify_slice or claim_done.

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