verify_intent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that failures never raise (returned as passed=False rows), that it is safe in a loop, that it is inspection-only and mutates nothing, and that the handle must already have a declared intent contract. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to invoke safely.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then behavior, then the parameter, then the return shape — a sensible progression with no filler sentences. The return block is verbose but justified since no output schema exists.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully: it specifies behavior, the input precondition, and the exact return structure (handle/ok/results with invariant enumerations). Nothing an agent needs to call 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 0% and the schema itself says nothing about the single parameter, but the description supplies meaning and a precondition: 'handle: the part (must have a declared intent contract).' That materially clarifies the argument beyond the bare string type.

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 — 're-run every invariant declared with declare_intent' — and frames it as 'the regression gate to run after each edit.' It also names what it composes (check_shape / check_airtight_path / face-role resolution), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like verify_feature or verify_contract.

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?

Gives clear usage context: run after each edit, and safe to call in a loop. It does not explicitly name alternatives (verify_feature, verify_contract) or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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