knowledge_verify

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already clear. The description adds a behavior detail: it checks each record for a non-empty source field, and returns a structured object with specific fields including pass/warn/fail outcome. This adds value beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what triggers 'warn' vs 'fail' thresholds, or how limit/domain affect the scan. Some behavioral ambiguity remains.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes the return structure. It's efficient without fluff. Minor deduction for not explaining parameters.

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 read-only verification tool with annotations covered, the description is reasonably complete but leaves gaps: no explanation of how 'limit' interacts with scanning (does it scan all records or just first N?), what 'domain' filters, and what the 'recommendation' field contains. Given the existence of a clear return schema in prose, it's adequate but not 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 0% for the three parameters (app_id, limit, domain), and the description only mentions checks on knowledge records without explaining the meaning of app_id, limit, or domain. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation. An agent would need to infer usage from parameter names, which is risky for 'domain' and 'app_id' roles.

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 states a specific and unambiguous purpose: verify source provenance of knowledge records, checking each for a non-empty source field. The verb (verify) and resource (knowledge records) are clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tools knowledge_check or frank_verify, but that's partially mitigated by the named dependency on knowledge_read.

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 says it requires 'knowledge_read' permission, which is a precondition but not a usage condition. It doesn't explain when to use this tool versus knowledge_check or other verification tools. There's no when/when-not guidance beyond the inherent 'verification' context. This is minimal guidance.

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