Create a minimal, Reality-first verification plan for a claim and claim type, mapping required independent evidence checks without executing external tools.
Build a minimal Reality-first verification plan without executing external tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | ||
| claim_type | Yes | ||
| available_tools | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does 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.