Verify code changes by running deterministic AST syntax checks, security SAST, and unit tests locally without using model tokens.
Run Zero-Token Deterministic Verification (AST syntax check, Enterprise Security SAST, and Unit Tests).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: the verification is 'deterministic' and 'Zero-Token', implying no LLM cost. However, it says nothing about whether it requires a resolvable repo, whether it writes artifacts, how failures are surfaced, or what the result looks like.
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 no filler; the parenthetical enumeration of checks is compact and informative rather than redundant.
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 and no output schema, the description should explain the outcome contract (per-check pass/fail, error reporting) and the meaning of repo_path. It explains only what is run, leaving the agent without enough to interpret results or call it reliably.
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 single parameter repo_path has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, so an agent gets no guidance on whether it is required, what path form is expected, or what defaults apply when omitted (required=false). The schema alone is insufficient here.
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 uses a specific verb ('Run') plus a named capability ('Zero-Token Deterministic Verification') and enumerates the three checks performed (AST syntax check, Security SAST, Unit Tests). This is clearly distinct from siblings like build_graph or blast_radius, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the near-identical aisdlc_verify or the pev_run tools.
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?
There is no statement of when to invoke this versus alternatives such as localvibecode_pev_run, aisdlc_verify, or the build_graph/blast_radius tools. The agent must infer that verification happens after a change, and there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.