ateam_verify_consistency

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

Though no annotations are provided, the description fully details behavior: read-only, returns ok and drifts array, explains drift causes (network blip, container restart) and that boot sync heals it later. This provides comprehensive behavioral context.

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 well-structured with bullet points for return values, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary content.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (ok: true/false, drifts list) and provides context about drift causes and relationship to other tools. Completeness is high for this tool's complexity.

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% for the single parameter (solution_id). The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states the tool checks consistency between Builder filesystem and GitHub for a solution, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ateam_github_diff or ateam_github_status. It specifies it is a read-only probe that does not trigger a deploy.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: 'Run after a series of ateam_github_patch calls to confirm the Builder backend is consistent with GitHub before you ateam_build_and_run.' Also notes it is read-only and does not trigger deploy, clarifying when not to use.

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