copalibre_module_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it discloses the authentication posture ('needs no API token'), the execution mechanism (direct-database checks, not API calls), and the reporting behavior (per-module PASS/FAIL with failure detail). It never states explicitly that nothing is mutated, though 're-validates' and 'check' strongly imply a read-only operation.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the situational cue and then the implementation/auth footnote. Each sentence adds distinct information and none is redundant with the schema.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema verification tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use it, output semantics, and auth requirements. It leaves open whether a FAIL result is reported in-band only or also raises an error, and says nothing about cost/latency when many modules are installed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4, and there is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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 precise verb plus resource and scope: 'Re-validates every installed module's stored document and assets against the running CopaLibre core version,' and even states the output shape (PASS/FAIL per module with failure details). It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the nearby sibling copalibre_module_validate_local, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

'Use it to check installation integrity, especially after an upgrade' gives a clear triggering context, and the mention of running the same checks as `copalibre module verify` anchors it to a known workflow. No when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g. copalibre_doctor) are offered, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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