scout_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and largely succeeds: it discloses the ordering guarantee (worst route first, grouped so a route is walked once) and the exact state effect of each verdict ('gone' resolves, 'present' stamps confirmed, 'changed' keeps open and says behaviour differs). Gaps remain around idempotency/overwriting an existing verdict and any permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the no-argument worklist mode, then the verdict-recording mode. It is dense but every clause (ordering, grouping, evidence/repro, per-verdict semantics) carries information an agent needs; nothing is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description steps in to say what the worklist returns (findings with evidence and repro steps, in re-test order). For a 5-param read/write hybrid tool this is close to complete; the only shortfall is that the `session` parameter's concurrency semantics are never echoed outside the schema.

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 does add meaning for `verdict` (what each value does to the finding's lifecycle) and for `ids` (narrowing), which is above baseline, but `note` and `session` get no treatment in the description – the session concurrency guidance lives only in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('re-test findings earlier runs left open') and clearly separates its two modes: fetching the worklist vs. recording a verdict. It does not explicitly name any sibling (e.g. scout_resolve, scout_recheck_plan, scout_finding), so the agent must infer differentiation, but the scope is unmistakable.

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?

Gives concrete timing guidance: 'after a fix wave, or at the start of a run against an app this project has tested before.' It also explains the ids-narrowing branch. What it lacks is an explicit when-not / named alternative (e.g. when to use scout_resolve instead of recording a verdict here).

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