verify_standards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: it returns a report and it fails when blocking errors are found. It does not disclose that the tool writes into the target project (copying verify-standards.mjs to scripts/ when installScript is true), nor whether the run is idempotent or what permissions the project root requires.

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: the first front-loads what is verified with a concrete checklist, the second covers the return and failure behavior. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more: the shape of the returned 'reporte' is undefined, and the side effect of writing a script into the project is only discoverable via the schema. The essential invocation contract is present, but behavioral completeness has clear 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 both projectRoot and installScript are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work and the description merely implies scope with 'proyecto destino'.

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 ('Ejecuta la verificación') plus the resource (estándares del proyecto) and enumerates the exact checks performed (naming, cabeceras de seguridad, @Version, .env.example, SP opt-in), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_rules or inspect_project. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'sobre el proyecto destino' implies this runs against an already-scaffolded target project, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus get_rules or inspect_project, and no preconditions (e.g., that the project must already exist) are spelled out.

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