rea_patch_text_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the operation is read-only, which is useful. But it says nothing about what happens when the assertion fails (error thrown vs. boolean returned), how encoding is handled, or whether regex mode changes matching semantics—all critical for a verify tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for what it covers, though the size itself reflects the under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, one terse sentence is insufficient. The agent cannot determine result semantics (return value vs. exception on failed verification), encoding behavior, or the interaction between contains and not_contains.

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?

With 5 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the schema supplies bare titles only. The description alludes to the contains/not_contains distinction and regex matching, but says nothing about file_path, encoding, or the type/meaning of the regex boolean. Most parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 verb (只读校验) and resource (文本/代码文件) with a clear scope: checking for presence or absence of a keyword or regex. An agent can grasp the operation immediately. It stops short of differentiating itself from the close sibling rea_patch_text_search, which likely performs a similar content lookup.

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 phrase 只读校验 implies a validation/assertion use case rather than a discovery/search use case, which hints at when to prefer this over rea_patch_text_search. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is named, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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