verify

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

The description fully discloses what the tool checks (TDD compliance, DI compliance, no critical issues, quality score >= 50) and what it returns (PASS/FAIL). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so comprehensively.

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 well-structured with clear sections (WHEN TO USE, WHAT IT CHECKS, RETURNS, WORKFLOW, EXAMPLE). It is concise yet complete, with no redundant sentences.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, checks, return values, and workflow comprehensively. It provides all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds context by explaining parameter roles in the workflow (e.g., tests required for TDD compliance) and includes an example. It goes beyond schema descriptions but is not highly additive.

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 generated code before handoff.' It uses specific verb 'verify' and resource 'generated code', and distinguishes from siblings like 'validate' by focusing on code generation workflow.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly states when to use (after generating code, before review/handoff) and provides a step-by-step workflow. It effectively guides the agent on appropriate usage.

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