foundation_verify

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), and the description adds valuable safety context: 'with no shell' indicates command execution is disabled, and 'preview or run' clarifies available modes. This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 a single sentence, immediately front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not mention return values, failure modes, or what 'preview' vs 'run' produces. For a simple tool this is adequate, but it leaves gaps about expected outcomes, making it minimally complete.

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 coverage is only 33%, with only project_root described. The description compensates by mapping 'preview or run' to the mode parameter and 'one explicitly registered' to check_id, providing meaning that the schema lacks. It partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Preview or run') and the resource ('one explicitly registered, allowlisted Foundation evidence check'), with a scope constraint ('with no shell'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single check rather than broad analysis or scanning.

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 implies usage for a single, pre-registered check, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over sibling tools like foundation_analyze_project or foundation_scan_changes. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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