feature_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does specify the checks that will be performed, which is genuinely informative. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, whether any side effects occur, or what the result format is.

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 a single well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the [WORKFLOW] marker, and every clause adds substantive detail about the verification behavior. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has only one required parameter and that parameter is well documented, so invocation requirements are clear. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or reports—e.g., a pass/fail result, error list, or summary. This omission leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents featureName as 'Name of the feature to verify.' The description reinforces that the parameter refers to the feature being verified but adds no new detail about naming conventions, where to find the feature name, or expected format. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('verifies') and resource ('post-implementation feature'), and enumerates concrete checks: instance existence, script syntax, remote bindings, and errors. This is clear and useful, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other audit-like siblings such as completeness_audit or diagnostics_safe_repair.

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 phrase 'post-implementation verification' gives implied context that this tool is meant to be run after a feature has been implemented. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools like feature_implement, completeness_audit, or diagnostics_safe_repair, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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