report_verification

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavior, and it does disclose the key traits of being append-only and post-seal only. This is meaningful because it signals immutability and a lifecycle restriction. It does not cover permission requirements, failure behavior, or duplicate-report handling, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler; the action and the two important constraints ('append-only', 'post-seal only') all earn their place. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool still has 7 parameters (5 required) with no schema descriptions and no annotations. The one-line description does not explain required parameter semantics or operational details such as what counts as a valid outcome or how evidence should be shaped. This is insufficient for reliable invocation without additional context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain fields like run_id, outcome, actor_id, evidence, actor_role, contract_id, and invariant_key. 'Invariant' and 'outcome' are the only concepts hinted at; the remaining parameters are left semantically undefined. The description adds only marginal value over the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a specific object ('probe outcome for an invariant'), so a model can tell what action this tool performs. It also adds 'append-only; post-seal only' scope, which makes the purpose more concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like append_event or evaluate_contract, so it stops short of 5.

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?

'Post-seal only' gives a clear lifecycle condition for when this tool can be used, and 'append-only' rules out updates. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit 'when not to use' beyond the seal condition, so it does not fully replace comparison with sibling tools.

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