vpp_verify

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It establishes that this is a check, but does not state whether it is read-only, whether it repairs or writes back to the file, whether it can fail hard versus return findings, or what permissions/access the path requires. The "always passes" note is a helpful behavioral clue but far from complete for a mutation-ambiguous tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the operation and its scope, with the caveat about VP-saved files second. No redundant restatement of the name and no filler.

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?

With a single required parameter, an existing output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential question of what the tool inspects. The remaining gap is behavioral: whether verification has side effects on the file and how it relates to vpp_project_info, which the agent must guess.

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?

Only one parameter (path) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. It does so minimally by tying the input to a .vpp file, telling the agent what kind of path to supply, but says nothing about relative vs absolute paths, whether the file is modified in place, or error behavior for a non-.vpp file.

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?

"Strukturalna kontrola pliku .vpp" gives a clear verb (kontrola/walidacja) and resource, and the parenthetical enumerates exactly what is checked: references, IDs, model-view links, lists. It does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling, but the siblings (edit, delete, list, get, export) are operationally distinct, so misselection risk is low.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement against alternatives such as vpp_project_info. The second sentence, "Pliki zapisane przez VP przechodzą ją zawsze," implicitly signals the useful case (externally or programmatically modified files) and that native exports will be clean, but the agent must infer this rather than being told.

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