turingmind_run_verification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses running tests, static checks, security scans, and updating confidence score. However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or whether the tool is safe (e.g., destructive implications are not addressed).

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose. It efficiently lists actions (runs tests, returns results, updates score). Minor improvement could be removing the 'Auditor Mode:' prefix for 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's actions and outcomes. However, it lacks details on the return format of results, error conditions, and required setup. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output, more completeness is needed to fully guide the agent.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal context beyond the schema, such as 'Auto-discovered' for test_dir, but does not elaborate on node_id or verification_types meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 states the tool executes a verification suite for a SpecNode, runs tests, static checks, and security scans, and returns structured pass/fail results while updating a confidence score. It distinguishes from siblings like turingmind_generate_verification which likely creates verification suites.

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 usage via 'Auditor Mode' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as turingmind_generate_verification. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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