run_data_layout_acceptance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Verify' suggesting a read-only check, but it does not mention side effects, return format, or what happens on failure. The lack of parameters implies reliance on a pre-existing context, but this is not clarified.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action and objects.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a complex sibling landscape, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'acceptance' entails, how results are presented, or how to interpret failures. The tool's behavior in the broader workflow is unclear.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema fully covers the input (trivially). The description adds no value beyond the schema, but the baseline is 4 due to high schema coverage.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'Verify' and lists specific resources (split source packs, registries, fixtures, normalized source_unit contracts), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'run_packaging_acceptance' or 'run_jurisdiction_registry_acceptance', which are also acceptance verifications.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other acceptance tools. No use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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