rc_verify_causation

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

No annotations are given, so the description carries full burden. It details the four tests but omits behavioral traits like side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what happens on invalid input. It partially compensates with internal logic but lacks safety/state context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a clear list format. Every sentence is informative. Loses a point for lacking structured formatting (e.g., line breaks for the list) but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, scores). It also does not describe how session_id is used or caveats about nested objects. Lacks completeness for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists the four tests but does not explicitly link them to parameters. The verification_level parameter is already well-described in the schema. The description adds marginal value 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'causal relationship', and lists four specific tests. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rc_add_causal_link or rc_confirm_classification.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation criteria are provided. The tests imply a verification scenario, but 'when-not' and alternatives are missing.

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