reqs_verify

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it does so by spelling out exactly what each check does (test file existence, duplicate IDs/numbering gaps, status contradictions). It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe side effects, but the enumerated checks plus the verb 'verify' give an agent a solid model of its behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, a bulleted behavior list, and a short Args section. There is no filler, and the scannable structure makes the check scopes and defaults immediately accessible.

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 tool with two optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the operation, the selectable checks, and the path-dependent parameter. It leaves minor gaps such as prerequisites (expected project layout, file search scope) and explicit side-effect/read-only confirmation, but those are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no enums, the description is the sole documentation of parameters, and it fully compensates: it defines 'checks' with the exact allowed values (tests, ids, status) and default 'all', and 'project_dir' with its purpose ('root for test file verification') and default cwd. This adds meaning the raw schema completely lacks.

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 a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('requirements for issues'), then clarifies with concrete check categories (tests, ids, status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/query tools such as reqs_query and reqs_get: it is an automated problem-finding verification rather than a retrieval or stats operation.

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 check options and the phrase 'Runs automated checks to find problems' imply when to use the tool: after requirements are written, to catch file, ID, or status inconsistencies. However, it never names alternative tools, states when not to use it, or gives explicit routing guidance relative to the many reqs_* siblings.

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