verify_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the sampling policy (never-verified and least-recently-verified first), what is returned (entries plus skeletons of their claimed files), and the intended follow-up write via save_verification. It does not state permissions or whether the sample is deterministic in size beyond the default, but the behavioral picture is substantially richer than the schema.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the differentiator, then the return contract, then the call-to-action. Every clause carries distinct information and none is redundant.

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 two-parameter sampling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, in what order, why it is returned that way, and what to do with the result. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the default of 5 for 'sample'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (spot-check) and resource (the concept map's correctness), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling mason_check_drift with the parenthetical 'drift checks freshness; this checks entries were right to begin with.' An agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('Run periodically, or after an automated refresh wrote entries no human reviewed') and names the follow-up tool (save_verification) plus the alternative (drift checks) with the condition that selects each.

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