elite_verify

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

The description says 'persist evidence by run_id,' which is a state-changing write, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction about whether the tool modifies state. The continuation workflow is useful behavioral context, but the contradiction makes the description misleading and undermines an agent's safety assumptions.

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 one compact sentence with no filler and a clear temporal sequence: run, persist, follow continuation, then answer. It is front-loaded with the primary action. It could earn a 5 if it also named the check categories or prerequisites, but as written it is efficiently structured.

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 an output schema, this is a complex tool with 11 optional parameters, an enumerated check list, and a continuation protocol. The description leaves critical operational details unspecified: what the check enum values mean, how the continuation is obtained or invoked, what inputs like command or code relate to, and whether any prerequisites exist. It is not sufficient for reliable invocation.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only weakly hints at two parameters: 'run one check' maps to check, and 'persist evidence by run_id' explains run_id's purpose. It leaves code, draft, query, command, language, step_index, project_root, allowed_files, and forbid_dependency_changes entirely unexplained.

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 a concrete action: 'Run one check' and mentions evidence persistence, so it is not a tautology. However, it never explains what a 'check' verifies or what the tool's domain scope is; the title in annotations ('Verify runtime and capabilities') carries much of the purpose signal. It also does not differentiate the tool from its siblings beyond relying on the 'verify' name.

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 gives clear usage context: run a check, persist evidence by run_id, and follow the returned continuation before producing an answer. This tells the agent the required workflow and sequencing. It does not, however, state when not to use this tool or how it compares to elite_memory and elite_prepare.

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