verify_build_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating a report and distinguishes check types, but omits side effects, output format, or consequences of missing parameters. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, but it is under-specified given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations). It could include parameter explanations without significant bloat.

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?

The description partially explains the tool's role relative to a sibling, but it lacks details about return values, behavior when parameters are omitted, and does not compensate for the missing output schema and parameter descriptions. Overall, it leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided. The tool description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., notes, drawing_spec_id, expected mass). This leaves agents with no semantic guidance for parameter values.

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 creates a structured verification report for the active part. It distinguishes from the sibling verify_against_spec by explaining that bbox is the hard envelope check while other metrics are advisory, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool versus verify_against_spec by differentiating hard vs. advisory checks, but it does not explicitly state use cases or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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