verify_figure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the method (vision self-check, 8 quality domains) and the return values (pass/fail, domain scores, missing/garbled labels). It does not mention side effects, but as a verification tool, non-mutating behavior is strongly implied. This is adequate disclosure given the tool's nature.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second details method and returns, and the last defines the key parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, method, and return values, and it explains one parameter. But with four parameters and 0% schema coverage, missing details about image_path, language, and figure_type make it incomplete. The existence of an output schema covers returns, but the input side remains under-specified.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Only 'expected_labels' is explained in prose ('Exact text strings (e.g. CJK labels) the figure should contain'). The other three parameters—image_path, language, and figure_type—are left to their names and defaults, with no additional meaning provided. This is a significant gap for a tool with four parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Run the automated quality gate on a generated figure') and adds detail about vision self-check and CJK verification. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'evaluate_figure', which likely has overlapping functionality.

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 'automated quality gate' implies it is used after figure generation for validation, and the focus on CJK labels suggests a specific use case. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'evaluate_figure', nor any stated prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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