lock_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what is detected but omits key behavioral traits: whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies state, what triggers an error, or how the result is presented. For a verification tool, these gaps reduce transparency.

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?

One concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. Information density is high.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (verification against a lock file) and no output schema, the description should hint at the return format (e.g., boolean, diff report). It doesn't explain what a lock file is or how it is created, assuming context from sibling tools. Adequate but with 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?

The single parameter 'config' has a description in the schema ('Path to MCP config file.'). The tool description does not add any additional information about the parameter, such as format, defaults, or how it relates to the lock file. 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'verify' and the resource 'live MCP servers match a previously saved lock file'. It specifies the exact purpose: detecting schema drift, added/removed tools, and breaking changes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'verify' (generic) and 'check_server' (single server check).

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?

Description implies usage context (when a lock file exists and drift detection is needed), but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided. With nine siblings, more guidance would be helpful.

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