verify_fix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool re-scans and returns statuses, but does not mention whether it is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The return format is described but side effects are not addressed.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately explaining the action and output. No redundant wording; every sentence 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?

Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., original scan data) or constraints, but it is sufficient for basic usage.

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 input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema; it merely mentions 'by rule ID' which is already clear from the ruleId parameter description.

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's purpose: to verify that a security fix was applied correctly by re-scanning code and checking a specific rule ID. The verb 'verify' and resource 'security fix' are explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'fix_code' or 'explain_remediation'.

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 the tool should be used after applying a fix, but it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'check_code' or 'analyze_dataflow'. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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