review_implementation

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Verify' implies a read-only check, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, failure behavior, or return format.

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 one sentence with no filler and places the trigger condition first. This is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 schema fully documents both parameters, and the simple verification scope is clear. Without an output schema or annotations, an explicit statement of read-only behavior and expected return would improve completeness, but the description is largely sufficient.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that filesModified are the 'expected files' whose existence is checked, which is a modest semantic addition.

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 verb 'verify' names the action, and the object is specific: the plan checklist and the existence of expected files. It also scopes usage to 'after implementing a feature,' which clearly separates it from audit/compile/read siblings.

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 explicitly provides a temporal trigger: after implementing a feature. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion rules, but the trigger is sufficient to select this tool in the design_feature-to-implementation workflow.

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