local_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that raw tool output is often thousands of tokens and that triage summarizes failures via a local model, and it describes the return shape (PASS or short failure list). It does not disclose anything about side effects, permissions, or runtime characteristics like duration, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 front-loaded with purpose and the Bash replacement rationale, then structured sections for Args and Returns, which is easy to scan. It is slightly verbose in the Args/Returns blocks, but every sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is optional, yet the description also summarizes the return form (PASS or short failure list), which is sufficient. Combined with parameter meanings and the use-instead-of-Bash guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 compensate. It documents both parameters: workspace_root as an absolute repository path, and triage as a boolean that, when true and the gate fails, produces a local-model summary. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types and default.

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 action (run this project's verification gate) and specifies the source config (.ollama-mcp.toml or autodetected), and even names the exact alternative it replaces (Bash lint/typecheck/test). An agent can distinguish it from local_edit, local_explain, and local_status without opening any schema.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: instead of running lint/typecheck/test through Bash when you only need to know pass/fail and what broke. The condition 'when you only need to know whether it passes and what broke' is a clear when-to-use criterion with a named alternative.

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