status

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

With only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false supplied, the description carries real weight and does so: it discloses the side effect of writing the same table to docs/verification.md, which explains why readOnlyHint is false, and confirms the tool is a ledger reader that never executes simulations. Remaining gaps are whether docs/verification.md is overwritten or merged, and what happens when the ledger is absent or a step's dependency files are missing.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the status vocabulary, the file side effect, the ledger dependency, and the ownership caveat, so nothing critical is buried at the end. The enumerated step list is long but each item adds real information about what is reported; the only mild redundancy is restating status values that the output schema likely already defines.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and its behavioral context (ledger source, file write, no simulation execution, spec approval is not its job) is strong. However, for a tool whose only input is undocumented and whose write target docs/verification.md has unstated overwrite semantics, the definition is not complete enough to guarantee correct invocation on the first try.

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% for the single required parameter 'project', so the description is the only source of meaning and it never says what the identifier is — a directory name, a path, or a key in the ledger. The text repeatedly scopes behavior to 'the project' but adds no format, resolution rules, or failure behavior for an unknown project, leaving the one input effectively undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Show the validation sequence for the project') and then enumerates exactly which steps and which status vocabulary are reported: spec valid, spec approved, Verilog check, Icarus/Verilator simulation, requirement coverage, synthesis, and later milestones. It also separates itself from siblings by stating it 'reads the ledger that emit_verilog, run_tests and synthesize keep' and 'never runs a simulation', so an agent can distinguish it from those tools without opening their schemas.

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?

Usage context is clear (inspect the current validation state of a project) and there is an explicit exclusion: 'Approving the spec is the owner's step on the command line; no tool can do it, so do not try', which prevents a plausible misselection. 'It never runs a simulation' implicitly routes the agent to run_tests for execution, but there is no explicit 'use X instead when Y' for the reporting alternatives, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether the ledger must already exist).

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