verify_after_change

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description explains the additive gating logic, exactly which gates run under which conditions, and the PASS/FAIL behavior including which gate failed and a recommended next command. This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured, using a numbered list. The first sentence states the purpose, and every sentence adds relevant detail without redundancy.

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?

The description explains the overall gate logic and pass/fail outcome, but omits details on three parameters (timeout, test_filter, changed_files) and does not specify the return structure beyond saying PASS or failure. Given the tool's complexity, this is insufficient for full agent understanding.

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 coverage, the description must compensate but only covers mark_id, run_tests_mode, and playtests. It provides no guidance for timeout, test_filter, or changed_files, which remain ambiguous. This is a significant gap for a tool with six optional parameters.

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 this is a 'single verification gate after code/scene changes' with a concise list of gates. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a composite that runs several specific checks (await_compile, get_compile_errors, etc.).

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 gives clear context: use after code/scene changes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as running the individual tools separately, but the composite nature is implied. It could be improved by stating 'use this instead of manually running each gate'.

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