discover_verifiers

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, leaving behavioral details to the description. The description adds useful context by naming the input source and the output, but it does not disclose whether side effects occur or what state changes may happen. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no filler. The core action and source are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and source. It lacks explicit workflow placement or side-effect disclosure, but these are secondary given the low complexity and rich schema signals.

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%, and the single task_id parameter is already documented as the identifier returned by create_task. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already covers it adequately.

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 ('derive') with a specific resource ('verifier argv and working directories') and a clear source ('live project manifests'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from execution- or attestation-focused siblings.

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 a use case: derive verification arguments and directories from manifests. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like prepare_verification or derive_criteria, nor does it state when not to use it.

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