Pre-action gatekeeper check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool acts as a gate that can block edits, verifies task completion, and mandates a specific reproduction format. It does not explicitly state the return decision structure, but the output schema likely covers that, and the 'allow' requirement implies it.

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—four sentences that front-load the main purpose and then detail the critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place: the gatekeeper role, the requirement to call before editing, the reproduction format, and the rule about evidence. No filler or redundancy.

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 (6 params, nested object, output schema), the description fully covers the essential usage: when to call, what to supply, and the decision rule. The output schema covers return values, so no additional return explanation is needed. The description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%, baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema by specifying that `command` must be a bare executable, `args` must not be embedded in `command`, and that `evidenceOfProblem` alone is insufficient without `reproduction`. This adds practical usage meaning to the 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 states a specific verb ('verify'), the resource (whether a change is justified and task already solved), and context (before modifying code). It clearly distinguishes the tool's role as a gatekeeper without ambiguity, and no siblings exist to confuse.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this BEFORE modifying any code' and sets a hard rule: a reproduction is required to obtain an 'allow', and free-text evidence alone is insufficient. This gives clear when-to-use and what-to-provide guidance, with no alternative tools to compare.

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