verify_package_integrity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds useful context about platform restrictions ('Only works on SUSE Linux') and the detection capabilities (modified, missing, corrupted files). However, it does not disclose deeper behavioral details such as required privileges, output format, or whether checksum databases are auto-updated, leaving the description at a baseline level given the annotation coverage.

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, starting with a clear purpose statement, followed by platform and usage notes. Every sentence provides valuable information: the action, the detection targets, the OS limitation, and the recommended trigger. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it defines the function, specifies the platform, gives a typical use case, and implies the expected result (checksum verification). It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could optionally mention the exact form of the output (e.g., affected files list) for completeness.

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% coverage with a clear description for package_name ('Name of the package to verify'). The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, and the mention of 'linux' as a specific package is just an example, not a parameter default. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Verify the integrity of installed package files. Detects modified, missing, or corrupted files.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_official_package_info or analyze_storage. The platform limitation to SUSE Linux and the example of verifying 'linux' further clarify the tool's scope.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'After system crash or disk errors, verify 'linux' package files match expected checksums.' This gives clear context for appropriate use, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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