turingmind_generate_verification

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

Discloses that it does not write application code, and explains behavior when test_dir is omitted (stubs recorded in DB only). No annotations provided, so description carries burden; sufficiently transparent.

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?

Two sentences plus a warning, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

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?

Covers main behavior, side effects, and limitations. Lacks mention of prerequisite that SpecNode must exist, but overall adequate given no output schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context about translation but no additional parameter-specific details beyond 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?

Clearly states verb 'generate', resource 'verification suite for a SpecNode', and details translations from contract elements. Distinguishes from sibling tools like turingmind_run_verification.

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?

Provides a negative guideline ('Do NOT write application code'), but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Implies it's for test generation only, but could be more specific.

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