Verify an already-migrated Signal Forms file

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

Beyond the annotations, which already mark read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds important behavioral nuances: it only reports defects the compiler misses, it does not re-report compiler errors, and its results 'prove the ABSENCE OF KNOWN DEFECTS, never correctness.' This is exactly the kind of limitation disclosure that helps the agent set expectations.

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 but stays efficient: it front-loads the tool's core behavior, lists useful defect categories, states the run order relative to tsc, and closes with an epistemically honest caveat. Every sentence contributes meaningful decision-making information.

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 single-parameter read-only verifier with a 100%-documented schema and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool reads, what defects it finds, where it fits in the workflow, what it explicitly does not do, and its limits. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema covers the only parameter with 100% accuracy, including that the path must point to an already-migrated file or directory. The description reinforces this with 'reads code you have ALREADY migrated,' but it does not need to add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 identifies a specific verb+resource: it reads already-migrated code and reports Signal Forms traps that compile but are still wrong. It gives concrete examples and establishes that its scope is intentionally narrower than 'correctness checking,' making it distinguishable from migration-planning and reporting siblings.

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 an explicit usage boundary: 'Run it after tsc, not instead of it.' It also states that compiler-reported errors are deliberately excluded, so an agent knows when the tool is and is not the right choice in a migration workflow.

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