Multi-Layer Verification

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this could have side effects. The description adds context by listing the gates and stating that blocking gates must pass for a SHIP verdict, which clarifies the decision logic. However, it does not disclose that running these gates (e.g., build, tests) may modify the repository or require network access, nor does it mention any side effects beyond the verdict. Since annotations carry the safety profile, the description adds moderate but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 two sentences, both front-loaded and information-dense. It lists the gates, distinguishes blocking gates, and states the return verdict without any filler or repetition. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary detail.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward verdict, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the exact gates and their blocking behavior, and tells the agent what the verdict is (SHIP or HOLD). It could improve by noting whether the non-blocking gates (lint, CVEs) still appear in the output or if there is additional detail beyond the verdict, but given the simplicity, it is adequate.

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 schema covers the single 'path' parameter fully (100% coverage) with a description of its meaning and constraints. The description adds no additional nuance about the parameter—it does not specify expected path formats, whether it should be a local path, or any edge cases. The schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 runs six verification gates and returns a verdict, with specific gate names (type check, lint, build, tests, secret scan, dependency CVEs). The verb 'verify' is paired with the resource 'layers', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'verify_all', which likely performs a similar comprehensive check, so it loses a point for lack of sibling differentiation.

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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'verify_all', 'security_scan', or 'full_diagnose'. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or trade-offs that would help an agent decide between this and other verification tools. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.

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