verify_remediation

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: runs a fresh audit, compares snapshots, flags skipped sections, and refuses to return 'complete' unless all are addressed. This is good transparency, though side effects like permissions are missing.

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?

Description is concise: three sentences plus an example. Every sentence serves a purpose, no redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description hints at return values ('flags skipped sections', 'complete' status). For a relatively simple verification tool, this provides adequate context, though explicit output structure is not detailed.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining that 'before_hash' is for tracking and can be omitted to re-run, and provides an example usage. This clarifies optionality and usage beyond the schema.

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: 'Compare before/after audit results to verify ALL sections were addressed.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'full_audit' by emphasizing post-remediation verification.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'MUST be called after completing remediation to confirm success.' Provides details like passing a before hash or letting it re-run. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned.

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