Verification Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content and the two reporting modes, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, requires prior verification runs, or how it handles missing data. This leaves some ambiguity for a report generator.

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 the verb 'Generate,' and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and output contents. However, it omits the format parameter and any edge-case behavior (e.g., no runs exist), leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 description does not mention the 'format' parameter at all, despite schema description coverage being 0%. The enum values (summary, detailed, json) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify how they affect the report or relate to the two modes mentioned in the description, creating potential confusion.

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 generates a report from the most recent verification run or a summary of all runs, listing specific contents (match rates, mismatched cases, spec coverage). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cleanroom_verify_run, which executes verification, by focusing on reporting.

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 after verification runs and clearly contrasts two modes (recent run vs. all runs). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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