verify_snippet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a 'check' but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only (no side effects), what happens on success/failure, or if any state is modified. The note about disambiguation is useful, but the lack of explicit side-effect or return behavior leaves room for assumptions.

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 concise and front-loaded, with only two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and timing, and the second adds a key parameter hint. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage), the description adequately explains the main purpose, the file_path parameter's purpose and when to use it, and the context (before writing). It does not describe the return value, but an output schema exists, so that is presumably covered there. The description is sufficient for an AI agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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%, and the description adds meaning to the 'file_path' parameter by explaining its role in disambiguation. However, it does not clarify the 'code' parameter beyond context (it is inferred as the snippet content). The description compensates partially but not fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's function: verifying a draft snippet's constructor calls against a registry before writing to a file. It uses a specific verb ('check') and a specific resource ('draft snippet's constructor calls against the registry'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_signature, list_duplicates) by focusing on validation pre-write, though the term 'check' could be more explicit about the action's outcome.

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 description provides usage context by saying 'before writing it to a file' and instructs to pass the file_path when known, explaining that imports and target location disambiguate duplicates. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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