Verify a code change with before and after evidence

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

Annotations only declare that this is not read-only and is closed-world; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: it records baseline runs, reruns checks, compares both sides, scans changed lines, and defines the VERIFIED condition and NOT_VERIFIED gating. It stops short of describing response formatting or persistence details, but the verdict semantics are unusually well disclosed.

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 front-loaded: the baseline workflow comes first, then the verification mechanism, then the pass/fail rule. Most sentences carry useful information, though the phrase about scanning changed lines is slightly compressed.

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 stateful verification tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains prerequisites, invocation timing, what the tool does, and what determines VERIFIED versus NOT_VERIFIED. It does not document the plan file format, but that is deferred to the plan file itself.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines the plan path and baseline boolean. The description adds operational meaning beyond the schema by explaining when to set baseline true versus false and how the plan file drives the verification checks.

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 (verify), resource (a code change), and evidence model (before/after runs). It clearly positions itself against siblings like find_suspects and compare_reports by explaining that it reruns the plan's checks, compares runs with the baseline, and scans changed lines for suspects.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to call with baseline true before changing code and without it before declaring the change done. It also states a clear exclusion: do not call a change done while it is NOT_VERIFIED.

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