rea_patch_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 disclose the key trait: it does not modify the file. However, it says nothing about what verification returns (boolean? error?), permissions, or failure behavior at the offset.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the parameter example. No wasted words. Nothing padded, though it could afford one more sentence on the offset format.

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 3-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin: it doesn't specify the offset format or what the verification result looks like. The critical non-write behavior is covered, but key calling details are missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for 'expected' (hex string, with example 90909090), but leaves 'offset' ambiguous (byte offset? decimal or hex?) and 'file_path' undocumented. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: verify bytes at a file offset. The parenthetical '(不写文件)' explicitly frames it as the non-mutating counterpart to rea_patch_apply, aiding sibling differentiation. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly, so not a full 5.

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?

'Does not write the file' implies this is the safe pre-check before rea_patch_apply, but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus rea_patch_apply, rea_patch_dump, or rea_patch_text_verify. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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