verify_ladder

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the conditional return of static_checks and the ordering relative to pytest tasks. However, it doesn't state whether the tool executes anything (though 'Suggest' implies non-execution) or describe behavior for non-C/C++ paths, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences convey purpose, a conditional, an example, and a cross-reference without redundancy. Each clause adds value.

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-parameter tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description adequately covers the main use case and key conditional logic. It could mention the empty-list case, but the output schema likely covers return structure, making this sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already provides a thorough description of changed_paths, including examples and purpose, covering 100% of the parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond referring to 'changed file paths', so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Suggest' and the resource 'minimal verify tasks' scoped to 'changed file paths', distinguishing it from generic task-listing siblings. The conditional return detail further clarifies its specialized behavior.

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?

It provides a clear when-to-use condition: for changed paths, and specifically instructs to run static_checks before pytest tasks for C/C++ files. It references tools/clang_tidy_workflow for additional context, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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