Verify Project

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

Annotations are all false, so description must disclose behavior. The truncated description only mentions running assertions and capturing something, but does not clarify side effects, permissions, or state changes.

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 truncated sentence, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to provide a complete, well-structured overview.

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 complexity (6 parameters, assertions array) and existing output schema, the description is far too brief to inform an agent about the tool's full capabilities and usage.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on parameters like assertions or teardown.

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 fragment 'Run bounded assertions and capture e…' vaguely indicates running assertions on a project, but it is incomplete and uses jargon. Among sibling tools like run_project_tests or read_scene, this tool's specific role is not clearly distinguished.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use verify_project versus siblings like run_project_tests or read_scene. The description lacks any context for selection.

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