diffci_verify_changed

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a fail-closed policy and that the snapshot must match exactly, which is genuinely useful. However, it never says that this executes verification commands, what those commands are derived from, what permissions or repo state are required, or how failure is surfaced — all critical for a tool whose timeoutMs parameter reveals it runs arbitrary-length processes.

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?

Two tight sentences with the scope stated first and the fail-closed guarantee second; nothing is redundant. Some phrasing ('exact working-tree snapshot', 'selected or full fallback verification') is dense jargon that would benefit from one clarifying clause, but the size is appropriate.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavior. It omits what a verification result looks like (pass/fail, per-test detail, diagnostics), what 'selected vs fallback' means operationally, and whether it mutates the working tree. For a fail-closed verification gate, these omissions leave 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 100%, so repo, timeoutMs, and redactPaths are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implying working-tree scoping. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and a precise resource scope: staged, unstaged, and non-ignored untracked changes. That scope implicitly separates it from siblings like diffci_changed_files or diffci_verify, but the description never names an alternative, so an agent must infer the distinction from sibling names alone.

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 'working-tree snapshot' framing implies this is the tool for pre-commit / uncommitted-change verification rather than committed-diff verification, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to diffci_verify, diffci_check, or diffci_verify_workflow. The mention of 'selected or full fallback verification' hints at selection behavior without telling the agent how to control it.

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