verify_snipe

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 level gating, PASS/FAIL state transitions, and abort on excessive blast radius, but it does not say whether the tool mutates state, requires authorization, or what 'SNIPE ABORTED' concretely does.

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 dense and packed into a single long sentence with semicolons. It avoids fluff, but the level and status mappings are hard to parse and would benefit from clearer structure.

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 and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the required id parameter and safety profile; it does not, leaving the invocation contract incomplete.

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 both parameters. The description explains that deep=True triggers the full suite, but the required id parameter is never defined, leaving half the parameters semantically undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Evaluate outward from what you changed,' then enumerates the verification checks by level. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate this tool from sibling snipe/verification tools such as next_snipe or snipe_report.

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 provides explicit conditions for each verification level: level 2 only if level 1 passed, level 3 only when deep=True or risk is high. It also maps outcomes to next states. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of sibling tools.

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