verify_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool is deterministic ('no LLM judges the outcome'), returns PASS/FAIL with per-step results and an HTML report, and defines exit-code semantics. It does not mention side effects like output directory creation or browser dependency, but these are partially inferable from the schema and tool nature.

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 four concise sentences with no fluff or repetition. It front-loads the core action and packs essential nuance about targets, outputs, and determinism into a compact space.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explicitly covers return values (PASS/FAIL with per-step results and HTML report) and exit-code semantics. All four parameters are documented in the schema, and the description adds behavior context. There are no significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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 100%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds modest context by explaining spec structure (spec.serve, spec.base/step.url) and that specPath can be a glob, but it does not materially enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run a dsh-verify acceptance spec (JSON file, or glob) against a real headless Chromium.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like verify_url by focusing on acceptance specs rather than single URLs, and from generate_and_verify by not mentioning any generation step.

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 gives useful context on when to use the tool, such as the ability to serve a local static dir or target any URL, implying it is for spec-driven verification. However, it does not explicitly state when to use an alternative like verify_url for simple URL checks, so it lacks direct when-not guidance.

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