verify_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the sample ordering ('never-verified and least-recently-verified first'), that results include skeletons of claimed files, and that reviewTokens bind entries to bounded evidence and become stale when evidence changes. This gives an agent the key behavioral context needed to use the tool safely.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose and contrast first, then output shape, then workflow and cadence. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description explains what is returned, why it is returned, and what to do next. It is complete enough for a two-parameter review tool; only explicit details about the exact response envelope or error behavior would make it fully exhaustive.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents dir and sample, including the default for sample. The description adds little beyond the schema's parameter meanings, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Spot-check the concept map's CORRECTNESS' and clearly states what it returns. It also differentiates from drift checking ('drift checks freshness; this checks entries were right to begin with'), so an agent can distinguish it from similar sibling tools like mason_check_drift.

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?

It explicitly contrasts this tool with drift checking and gives concrete guidance: 'Run periodically, or after an automated refresh wrote entries no human reviewed.' It also routes the follow-up action to save_verification, telling the agent exactly where to report verdicts.

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