verify

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

Description explains the read-only behavior (reads lockfile and compares), consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint: true). Provides context on what happens (report drift) without contradicting 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?

Description is well-structured with summary, Args, and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no unnecessary sentences, though slightly verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, read-only, output schema exists), the description is fully complete: explains purpose, parameters, and return value without gaps.

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, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: project_path as root directory with lockfile, and client as MCP client with enumerated values and auto-detection.

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 the tool's function: compare lockfile with installed MCP servers and report drift. It differentiates from siblings like list_installed or check_health by specifying the comparison aspect.

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 usage after configuration or installation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like restore or apply_stack. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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