omni_devpatch_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the NO-OP envelope when no devpatch is active, names the three return categories, and 'Compare' implies a read-only operation. It stops short of stating error behavior or explicitly confirming no side effects.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the operation, the return categories, and the no-active-devpatch edge case. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return categories and the no-op edge case. It omits error behavior and explicit read-only confirmation, but for a straightforward verify tool the description is largely complete.

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 schema provides no descriptions for `files`, `path`, or `sha256`, and the description only hints that the input is source-file hashes. This is enough to orient an agent, but it does not explain path scope, hash formatting, or the effect of an empty or missing `files` array.

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 states a specific operation — comparing source-file sha256 values against the active DevPatch inventory — and enumerates the result categories: changed_since_patch, missing, matches. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, but the DevPatch resource is distinct enough that purpose is clear.

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 intended use case is implied: verify source files against the active DevPatch inventory. The NO-OP envelope also signals that calling without an active devpatch is safe, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternative verification or inspection tools.

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