verify_fixes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds that a fresh re-scan is performed and results are reported as a delta, but it doesn't discuss side effects, cost, or prerequisites; the annotations carry the main behavioral burden.

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 plus a single parameter note, with the main purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds useful 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 one-optional-parameter tool with rich safety annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers when to run it, what it reports, and the parameter's default, leaving no obvious gap in the call contract.

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?

With no schema descriptions on the path parameter, the description fully compensates by defining path as 'Project root' and documenting its default behavior ('defaults to the most recently scanned project'). This is exactly the semantic information an agent needs and goes well beyond the schema's default null.

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 and resource: 'Re-scan the project after edits' and specifies the report contents ('what was fixed, what remains and the score change'). This makes the tool's purpose concrete and differentiates it from initial scans like scan_project and from passive listing tools like list_findings.

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 gives an explicit trigger: use after edits to verify that fixes took effect. It doesn't name sibling tools as alternatives or exclusions, but the 'after edits' context is clear enough that an agent won't confuse this with initial scanning or finding-listing tools.

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