bolt_verify_slot

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully adds that secrets are scrubbed, logs are bounded, and node-permission confines writes to project/temp roots. However, it never explains what side effects the 'run' step produces, what artifacts persist, or why the operation is non-idempotent and open-world, which are the facts an agent most needs before invoking a mutating tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the audit-then-run action and followed by sandbox constraints; nothing is redundant. The density of unexplained jargon ('contract', 'slot') costs it a point but the structure itself is clean.

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 six-parameter, non-idempotent, open-world tool with no output schema and thin schema coverage, the description covers sandbox safety but not the identity of the required slotId, the semantics of the audit phase, or what a successful or failed verification yields. It is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 only 17% (just projectPath), so the description must compensate; it partially does by tying timeout to bounded logs, naming both sandboxMode values, and implying testCommand is for custom shell commands. Still, slotId — the only required parameter — and allowedEnvKeys are never mentioned, leaving key inputs unexplained.

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 verb phrase 'Audit then run the live contract' names an action but leaves the core resource undefined — 'contract' and 'slot' are never explained, so an agent cannot tell precisely what is being verified. It also overlaps with the sibling bolt_audit_seams without stating how this tool differs from that audit-only tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus bolt_audit_seams, bolt_registry_promote, or other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only conditional guidance ('Custom shell commands require clean-env') is a parameter constraint rather than a when-to-use rule.

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