work_verify

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), not open-world, and not destructive. The description adds the requirement for a verify flag and the max commands, but does not mention potential side effects, permission details, or what happens if verification fails. It adds some context but not a full behavioral profile.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action and constraint. It uses two sentences with no fluff, though it could be improved by naming the key parameters.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It mentions the workspace requirement but omits details on parameter semantics, expected return, error conditions, or permission requirements beyond the flag. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to fill.

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%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only mentions 'commands' implicitly and 'workspace' vaguely. It does not clarify the fields 'workId' or 'cwd' or the command object structure beyond what the schema provides. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action (run verification commands) and the resource (accepted verification commands within a workspace). It also provides a strict limit (max 8) and a prerequisite (explicit or provider-verified workspace). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like work_get or evidence_list, though it doesn't name an alternative.

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 indicates when to use it (for verification) and implies a condition (INTEROP_ALLOW_VERIFICATION=1), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools for other purposes. It gives some context but no exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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