ywm_get_verification

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

Absence of annotations places full disclosure burden on description. It only states the action without revealing behavioral traits: no mention of read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when host_id is omitted (the schema indicates it's optional under certain configurations but description does not clarify).

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?

Extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded. However, it is arguably too terse, omitting valuable context. Still, it is well-structured and avoids 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?

Given no output schema and a single optional parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It fails to describe return data (e.g., what constitutes 'verification status'), leaving ambiguity. With richer context from annotations or summary, it could be more complete.

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%, and the schema already documents host_id as optional with a configuration condition. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, making it a baseline 3.

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 ('Get') and the specific resource ('host verification status'), distinguishing it from siblings like ywm_verify_host (which triggers verification) and ywm_get_host (general host info). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, such as whether a host must already exist, or when to prefer this over ywm_get_host or ywm_verify_host. Lacks contextual direction.

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