Guard Verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals only that several checks are aggregated into one gate; it says nothing about whether builds mutate the workspace, whether the call is read-only, what a failure returns, timeouts, or how policy_base/fail_on_policy_change alter behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and scope come first. It is as concise as a one-line description can be.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. Critical context is missing: what 'architecture regression checks' entail, whether the gate is read-only or modifies artifacts, and what the result/failure surface looks like.

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 only 60%, leaving strict, iteration, requirement, and changed_only undocumented. The description mentions checks and build but adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Run') and concrete resources (project checks, production build, architecture regression checks) framed as a single verification gate. An agent can tell what the tool does, but it is not distinguished from the many sibling guard tools, notably codapult_guard_check, which likely overlaps.

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 phrase 'as one verification gate' hints at a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as guard_check or guard_audit. With 14 sibling tools, this omission forces the agent to guess.

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