verify_project

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

The description mentions 'bounded assertions' and 'deterministic teardown', hinting at limitations and cleanup behavior. However, it lacks details on side effects, failure modes, or what happens to the project state. With no annotations provided, the description partially fulfills the transparency need.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 the rich schema (6 parameters, nested assertions), the description does not explain what 'bounded' precisely means, what evidence is captured beyond a screenshot, or what the tool returns. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify return values but does not.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'bounded' and 'evidence' but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema for individual parameters.

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 purpose: 'Run bounded assertions and capture evidence with deterministic teardown'. This identifies the specific verb (run), resource (assertions, evidence), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_project or validate_script.

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 implies usage for running assertions and capturing evidence, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_project or validate_scripts. No when-not or alternative tool references are given.

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