verify_sidecar

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains sidecar discovery by appending extensions and lists supported formats, but omits behavior for missing sidecars, multiple matching sidecars, or error handling for invalid files.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences covering purpose, sidecar discovery mechanism, and return values. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 description lists the four return values (algorithm, expected hash, computed hash, match), which covers key outputs. However, it lacks details on error scenarios (e.g., sidecar not found, hash mismatch) and exact return structure. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is mostly complete.

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 input schema already describes the 'path' parameter as the data file, not sidecar. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond clarifying that the path is relative. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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's purpose: verifying a file's integrity against a sidecar checksum file. It specifies the resource (file) and action (verify), and differentiates from siblings like get_file_hashes by focusing on sidecar verification.

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 implies usage when a sidecar file exists, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide conditions for avoidance or prerequisite checks.

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