verify_patches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-only verification (implicitly safe), but says nothing about what a failed verification yields, whether it aborts or reports, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves room that could have been spent on the missing usage and output context.

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 simple two-parameter verification tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate but omits the result semantics (success/failure reporting) and any relationship to sibling verifiers. An agent can invoke it but cannot fully predict its behavior.

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 100%, so both parameters (plugin_path and game_assembly) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Verify) and a concrete resource (Harmony patch targets in a plugin against the game assembly), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling validate_patch_target, which an agent would need to distinguish to choose correctly.

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 'still exist' hints at a post-game-update check, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no mention of the near-identical sibling validate_patch_target as an alternative. An agent gets no routing guidance.

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