bp_run_post_mutation_verify

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

The description is detailed despite no annotations. It enumerates the exact outputs (compile_status, error_count, health_score, etc.) and their meanings (e.g., 'safe_to_continue' defined as no compile errors). It also references a knowledge base entry, adding valuable 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 well-structured with a clear purpose, parameter list, returns list, and example. It is somewhat verbose (e.g., listing all outputs in detail) but that detail is useful. Front-loads the core purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (returns rich structured data) and low schema coverage, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, parameters, outputs, and even an example. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'blueprint_path' as 'full asset path or plain name' and 'changed_graphs' as 'graph names to validate' with a default, adding meaning beyond raw string/array types.

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 it runs a 'standard verification pack' after Blueprint mutations, combining compile diagnostics and graph validation. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'mat_get_compile_diagnostics' or 'bp_get_compile_diagnostics' by positioning itself as a post-mutation verification step.

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?

It explicitly says it is the 'default evidence block' that higher-order skills should include after edits, giving clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous enough; the absence of exclusions is minor.

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