verify_spec_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavior. It states the tool verifies/checks markers, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly disclose side effects, permission requirements, or output/return format. More could be said about whether it fails on missing markers or what results are produced.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a practical usage hint. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers what and when. However, it lacks information on the return/exit behavior or how to interpret results, which is important for a verification tool without an output schema.

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% for the only parameter (target_files), and the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 'verify whether the @spec-impl marker is placed in files,' using a specific verb (verify) and resource (@spec-impl marker). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'pass_to_ai_for_*' tools by being a verification tool rather than a generation/passing tool.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use 'after executing pass_to_ai_for_comments' and to confirm markers are added to all files. This provides clear when-to-use context, though it does not mention when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond the sibling list.

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