config_verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with a non-mutating check by naming config_regenerate as the repair path. It also enumerates the returned data fields (valid, errors, warnings, diffs), adding useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover exit semantics or how diffs are shaped.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core check, then the return shape, then the repair alternative and the optional parameter condition. No filler.

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 single-optional-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked, what is returned, what to do on failure, and when to pass projectPath. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new meaning: set projectPath specifically when the server is not running from the project root. That is a conditional not stated in the schema's plainer 'absolute path' wording.

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 and resource: check that generated files match .flisk/project.json and that every service.json is valid. This is clearly distinguishable from config_regenerate (which fixes drift) and config_explain, both named or implied by the sibling set.

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 routes the agent: a drifted generated file is fixed with config_regenerate, and projectPath should be set when the MCP server is not running from the project root. It lacks an explicit statement of when to use this over doctor or runtime_check, but the repair-alternative routing is clear.

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