Verify files actually changed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's added value is the comparison semantics: it compares against a prior snapshot or, failing that, HEAD. That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema alone, though it says nothing about what a negative or ambiguous result looks like.

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 sentences, zero filler: the action and its baseline come first, the usage trigger second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only verification tool this covers what to compare, against what, and when to call it. The one remaining gap is the result shape — whether it returns a boolean, a per-file diff, or a mismatch report — which is not covered by an output schema.

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 path, claim, paths and snapshot_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description only reinforces the snapshot_id-vs-HEAD fallback; it adds no meaning for the paths filter or the claim string beyond what the schema already says. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: checks whether files actually changed, with the comparison baseline named (snapshot taken before the task, or HEAD by default). This clearly separates it from verify_url, verify_github, verify_npm, which verify external artifacts rather than local file diffs.

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?

Explicitly says to use it "before claiming code was fixed, cleaned, refactored or written", which anchors the tool to a concrete moment in the workflow. It also states the default baseline (HEAD when no snapshot is given), but does not name any sibling tool as an alternative or exclusion.

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