verify_fix

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full behavioral disclosure. It states the return statuses ('fixed', 'still_vulnerable', 'new_issues') but does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether the tool is read-only. This adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentences, no unnecessary words. First sentence states the main purpose; second explains behavior and output. Every word adds value; extremely concise and well-structured.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers input and output well. It explains the verification process and return statuses. However, it omits behavioral details like whether it modifies state or requires previous fix application, and lacks usage context like when to choose this over sibling tools.

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% (all parameters described), providing a baseline of 3. The description adds beyond the schema by clarifying that 'ruleId' targets a specific vulnerability and that 'filePath' is for context-aware analysis, which is not detailed in the schema. This adds meaningful context.

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 tool verifies a specific security fix by re-scanning code against a rule ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fix_code' (applies fix) or 'remediation_plan' (plans). The verb 'verify' and noun 'fix' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage after applying a fix ('after applying the fix') but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'explain_remediation' or 'check_code'. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool suggestions are provided, leaving context implicit.

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