peer_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses prerequisites and input requirements but fails to mention side effects, return values, error conditions, or any behavioral impacts beyond 'route verification.' This is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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 with four sentences and no wasted words. It is front-loaded with critical instructions, making it efficient for quick reading.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description omits key context: what the tool returns, error handling, idempotency key usage, and prerequisites like repo path accessibility. It feels incomplete for a tool that likely performs significant actions.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces proper usage (e.g., 'never prose summaries' for diff) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's parameter 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?

The description states 'Route verification of tests/build output,' which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like peer_review_diff or peer_debug, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides explicit instructions on how to prepare inputs ('read relevant source files and attach full contents via files', 'pass complete diffs/logs — never prose summaries', 'set task with goals'). It implies usage for verification tasks but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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