run_xml_verification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs from the loaded XML spec file, preserves per-condition dataset filters and defaults, and details the behavior of output_dir and spec active selection (last loaded or PROSUITE_SPEC_PATH). No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with an overview, differentiation, prerequisite guidance, and a clear 'Args' section. Efficient use of language without unnecessary words. Could be slightly more concise but overall effective.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior, usage, parameter meanings, and output summary. Given that an output schema exists (context indicates true), the description appropriately mentions the return format without over-specifying. Sufficient for a tool with complex parameters and nested objects.

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%, but the description explains all four parameters in detail, including examples for data_source_replacements and envelope format. Fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Run a ProSuite quality verification directly from the loaded XML spec file.' Differentiates from sibling tool run_verification by explaining that this tool sends the XML as-is without decomposing, preserving details like filters and defaults.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with run_verification, telling when to use this tool over the alternative. Provides a prerequisite hint: 'Use search_spec (with empty query) to discover available specification_name values and workspace_id keys.' Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or other sibling exclusions.

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