operations_verify

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds scenario context about ambiguous writes and restart-safe recovery. It does not add details like authorization requirements, rate limits, or retry bounds, so it modestly extends the annotated behavior rather than fully elaborating it.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, the triggering condition, and the return behavior efficiently.

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?

With a fully described single parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. The main remaining gap is the absence of explicit routing versus sibling operation tools, which keeps it from being fully 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 single parameter is already well described as a one-time operation receipt returned by a preview tool. The description does not add syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Re-read receipt targets'), its trigger ('after an ambiguous write'), and its outcome ('return current state'). It is clearly a verification/re-read operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like operations_apply or operations_inspect by name.

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 gives clear usage context: after an ambiguous write, including restart-safe optimization recovery. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus operations_inspect or operations_apply.

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