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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one important trait—no external tool execution—but remains silent on permissions, side effects, idempotency, and other operational characteristics.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. However, for a tool with three parameters and no annotations, it is arguably too terse to be fully appropriate.

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 three parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits usage guidance, parameter semantics, and most behavioral details; only the output schema covers return values.

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% and the description adds no meaning for claim, claim_type, or available_tools. There is no indication of expected format, syntax, or how these parameters affect the plan.

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?

States a specific verb 'Build' and resource 'verification plan', plus a distinguishing constraint 'without executing external tools'. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like validate_evidence or classify_claim, so it falls short of a 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?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no alternatives. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never explains what counts as 'enough' evidence, whether the check is read-only, what threshold or policy applies, or how the verdict is expressed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the sparseness reflects missing content rather than tight editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and a non-trivial verification domain, the definition leaves the agent without the semantics needed to call it correctly.

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 must compensate and it does not: neither the allowed claim_type values nor the shape/required fields of an evidence item are explained. Only the loose notion of 'independent evidence' is conveyed.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (completion/current-state claim) plus the criterion (enough independent evidence). It is clear what the tool evaluates, though it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling validate_evidence.

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 versus validate_evidence, classify_claim, or build_verification_plan, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the routing from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a single gating condition but does not state whether the tool actually performs a block, returns a decision, is read-only or mutating, requires special permissions, or what happens when the condition is not met. The behavioral picture is substantially incomplete.

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 wasted words. However, given the tool's complexity and the completely undocumented parameters, it is too sparse to be appropriately sized for the task.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations, 0% parameter description coverage, and two undocumented parameters, the one-sentence description leaves critical context missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The meaning of 'state' and 'side_effect_state' is left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 conditional action (block blind replay) tied to a specific resource and conditions (side effects or request lineage unresolved). However, the tool name suggests a safety check rather than an enforcement action, and no sibling tool is mentioned or contrasted. The purpose is somewhat inferable but not sharply distinguished from siblings like validate_evidence or resolve_precedence.

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 a trigger condition (when side effects or request lineage are unresolved), but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives among the sibling tools. An agent must infer the context entirely from the name and vague condition.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether classification is deterministic, what categories exist, whether it mutates state, or what 'evidence gate' means operationally — a significant gap for a tool whose output apparently gates downstream behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a tool with zero parameter documentation, no annotations, and no usage routing, the description leaves an agent unable to construct a valid call with confidence or know when to make one.

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% and neither parameter has any schema-level description. The description does not explain what 'claim' should contain or what the optional 'claim_type' override does, so the meaning of both parameters is undocumented everywhere.

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?

States a specific verb ('classify') and resource ('agent claim') and hints at an output ('evidence gate'), which separates it somewhat from siblings like validate_evidence or resolve_precedence. However, 'evidence gate' and 'agent claim' are undefined domain terms, so an agent cannot tell precisely what classification taxonomy or output is produced.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus validate_evidence, check_completion_evidence, or the other six siblings. The condition under which classification precedes or replaces evidence validation is left entirely to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Compaction implies discarding material, yet it never states whether evidence is mutated, dropped, or merely summarized, nor whether the operation is reversible or permission-gated. The one behavioral claim made ('retaining source refs') is useful but far from complete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the retained-refs constraint is stated before the prioritization rule. Only the unexplained 'Reality proof' jargon slightly undercuts clarity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutation-flavored tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition is too thin to call safely. It omits the very behavioral facts an agent needs before compacting evidence.

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 is expected to compensate. It never explains the shape of the `evidence` array items or what `max_items` truncation does to the retained refs, leaving both parameters undocumented in schema and prose alike.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('compact evidence') and adds two qualifiers (retain source refs, prioritize direct Reality proof). However 'compaction' semantics and the undefined jargon term 'Reality proof' leave the exact transform ambiguous, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like validate_evidence or resolve_precedence.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. In a family of seven evidence-related tools, the agent gets no routing signal at all.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does deliver one critical trait: 'This tool does not persist it' clarifies this is a non-persisting/dry-run style operation, which matters for a tool named 'record_loss'. However, it omits permissions, idempotency, and side effects beyond the persistence caveat.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key caveat. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 5 required, undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin; it leaves parameter meaning and usage context entirely unaddressed. The output schema does relieve it of explaining return values, and the non-persistence caveat is a valuable addition, but the parameter gap dominates.

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% and there are 5 required parameters, so the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning for claim, why_wrong, corrected_form, evidence_refs, or prevention_rule. Only the phrase 'loss-ledger entry' gives vague thematic framing; an agent still lacks syntactic/format guidance for every required field.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a structured loss-ledger entry') that an agent can distinguish from siblings like classify_claim or validate_evidence. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from the other ledger/evidence-building tools in the sibling set.

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; the sibling set (validate_evidence, classify_claim, build_verification_plan) is never referenced. The only conditional information is the non-persistence note, which is behavioral rather than usage-directional.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ranking rule but not whether the tool mutates state, requires permissions, what happens to losing claims, or any side effects of 'resolving' a conflict.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its terseness is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than genuine density.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a resolution tool the description omits what 'resolving' produces for the input candidates, how ties outside the ladder are handled, and any operational constraints.

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% for the single 'candidates' parameter, an array of untyped objects. The description never mentions candidates or the shape each candidate must take, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap beyond the loose mapping to 'conflicting claims'.

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 gives a verb ('Resolve') and a resource ('conflicting claims'), and the precedence ladder hints at the decision logic. However, the terms 'Reality', 'CURRENT law', and 'cutover' are opaque without domain context, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like classify_claim or validate_evidence.

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 precedence order implies how conflicts are ranked but says nothing about when an agent should call this tool versus validate_evidence or check_replay_safety, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether validation is read-only, what happens on failure (throw vs. structured result), whether it mutates or normalizes the payload, or any side effects — leaving the safety profile entirely implicit.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a validation tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves out failure behavior and the relationship to the completion-gate workflow it references.

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% for the single "evidence" parameter, so the description must compensate — but "payload structure" only restates the parameter name. It gives no information about the expected shape, required item fields, or valid values of the evidence array.

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?

States a specific verb ("Validate") and resource ("evidence payload structure"), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling check_completion_evidence, which sounds like an overlapping concern, so the agent must guess which one to reach for.

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 clause "before it can satisfy a completion gate" hints at sequencing but names no alternative tool or condition for choosing this over check_completion_evidence, compact_evidence, or build_verification_plan. No when-not guidance is given.

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