Verify a slice claimed as done only when all acceptance gates are passed or waived. Optionally supply evidence IDs to support the verification.
Verify a DONE_CLAIMED slice only when every acceptance gate is PASS or WAIVED.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slice_id | Yes | ||
| evidence_ids | No | ||
| verifier_actor_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals a precondition/enforcement behavior (gates must be PASS/WAIVED) but does not disclose what 'verify' does to the slice (status transition, side effects), whether verifier_actor_id has permission requirements, or how evidence_ids is used. For a workflow mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the condition stated compactly. There is no filler or repetition.
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?
An output schema exists and covers return values, but the tool has no annotations and 0% schema coverage for parameters. The description only supplies the precondition; an agent still cannot determine the effect of verifying, the meaning of evidence_ids, or who may verify. Important gaps remain.
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% and the description provides no parameter information. Three parameters exist (slice_id, evidence_ids, verifier_actor_id) but only slice_id is inferable from the verb; evidence_ids and verifier_actor_id remain opaque. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema names.
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 action ('Verify') applied to a resource ('DONE_CLAIMED slice') and adds a precise precondition ('every acceptance gate is PASS or WAIVED'). The DONE_CLAIMED qualifier clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like claim_done or accept_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 phrase 'only when...' explicitly constrains invocation: only if every acceptance gate is PASS or WAIVED. This is a clear usage condition, though it doesn't name alternative tools for different states (e.g., set_gate, claim_done).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.