st.verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does clarify that this is a read-verification check rather than a UX evaluation, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is side-effect free, what happens on failure, or whether the resource must already exist.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and 'not a UX proof' earns its place by preventing a likely misuse. Nothing redundant is present.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a successful or failed verification returns and how targetUri should be used. It also doesn't connect to the sibling change operations it is presumably meant to follow, such as st.resource.patch. The intent is clear, but operational details are missing.

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 0%, and the description never mentions targetUri or explains how to supply the resource being verified. The parameter name alone suggests a URI, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema's minimal pattern/type information.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Verify that a resource can be read after a change.' This clearly distinguishes it from direct read and patch siblings, and the 'technical check, not UX proof' caveat adds further intent. It does not name sibling alternatives, so it is clear but not maximally 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 description states the trigger condition explicitly: use it 'after a change.' It also gives an exclusion: it is a technical check, not a UX proof, which prevents an agent from using it for user-facing validation. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the timing and boundary are clear enough.

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