generate_verification_plan

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 return structure (tier counts, up to 200 targets, a 'truncated' field) and the nature of directives as templates parameterized by node id. It stops short of stating whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, but as a plan generator that is implicit. The behavioral context provided is substantial, though not exhaustive.

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 efficiently organized: purpose first, then the tier definitions, then the directive detail and the alternative tool, and finally the return format. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 there is no output schema and no parameters, the description explains the output format in enough detail (tier counts, ranked targets, truncation) and describes the tiers themselves. It also points to the alternative tool, leaving an agent with everything needed to call it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The rubric gives a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, and the description correctly adds no parameter-specific detail because none exist.

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 opens with a specific verb ('generates') and a concrete resource ('tiered verification plan for every impacted node'). It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling generate_adversarial_probes by name, making the tool's role unmistakable even without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly states when not to use this tool: 'for concrete failure scenarios use generate_adversarial_probes instead.' This gives a clear alternative and a condition that selects it, which is exactly what the rubric asks for. No other exclusions are needed given the distinct purpose.

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