aisdlc_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, yet it discloses nothing about behavior: no indication of whether this is read-only, what it reads or mutates, whether it requires a built graph first, or what it returns. Pointing at another tool's name is not behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentence with no filler and the key fact (alias, and of which tool) front-loaded. It is efficiently sized — the problem is missing content, not verbosity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented parameter, and no statement of what verification means or what happens on failure, the definition is not sufficient to invoke confidently. The agent is forced to open localvibecode_verify to learn anything substantive.

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?

There is one parameter, repo_path, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The agent must infer whether it is a filesystem path, a repo identifier, an absolute vs relative path, or whether it is optional/defaults to cwd.

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 states only that this is a 'Legacy alias for localvibecode_verify' — it identifies the relationship to a sibling but never says what the operation actually does (verify what? builds? code?). An agent knows where to redirect but not the capability itself.

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?

'Legacy alias' implicitly signals that new work should go to localvibecode_verify, and that sibling is named explicitly. However, it never states when this alias is still appropriate (existing configs? backwards compat?) versus simply always preferring the canonical tool.

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