Verify After Change

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

The annotations only include readOnlyHint=false, providing minimal safety context. The description adds that gates are additive and only enabled ones run, but does not disclose what running a gate entails, potential side effects, or what happens on failure. Given the description carries the burden, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 extremely short, which is generally positive, but the second sentence ends abruptly with '1.' indicating a truncated list. This structural flaw makes the description incomplete and confusing, violating the principle that every sentence should be complete and useful.

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 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description must carry the full explanatory burden. It fails to specify what the enabled gates are, how they are enabled, what verification means in practice, or what the tool returns. The truncated list and vague 'gate' terminology leave the tool under-specified for an agent to use correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema already has an empty properties object, and the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics. No additional parameter description is necessary.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Single verification gate after code/scene changes,' which names the action (verification) and the context (after changes). However, the term 'gate' is vague, and the trailing '1.' suggests the description is truncated, so the full scope of what it verifies is unclear. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like compile_preflight or run_tests.

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 provides a clear temporal usage context ('after code/scene changes') and states that gates are additive and only enabled ones run. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over specific sibling tools, nor does it mention cases where other verification or preflight tools would be more appropriate.

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