mcp_qwen_verify_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the conditional payload behavior (error_log/troubled_files attached only in the error case), the exact confirmation token expected ('ПРОЕКТ_СОБРАН_ВЕРНО'), and the two possible outcomes (confirmation or corrected files). It does not disclose blocking/asynchronous behavior or side effects on task state, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: core action front-loaded, conditional behavior second, expected outcomes third. Every sentence contributes distinct information, and the structure mirrors the decision flow an agent needs.

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 covers the payload logic, workflow step, and possible verification outcomes, which is solid for a 6-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage. However, with no output schema, it leaves an ambiguity: whether the tool synchronously returns Qwen's verdict/corrected files or whether those arrive through a separate mechanism (likely a sibling like continue_task). An agent cannot fully determine what happens after calling.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine conditional semantics beyond the schema: it explains that error_log and troubled_files are used specifically when the project built with errors, tying those parameters to verification_status=ERRORS_FOUND. This usage logic is absent from the schema and helps an agent decide what to populate.

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 opens with 'ШАГ 6 ВЕРИФИКАЦИИ' and states a specific action: sends the assembled project structure and build/error report back to the Qwen subagent for confirmation. The verb+resource+recipient are all concrete, and the confirmation purpose clearly differentiates it functionally from siblings like submit_task or check_status. It stops short of 5 because it never names a sibling explicitly to draw the contrast.

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 'Step 6' workflow framing gives clear positional context (use after assembly, as the verification handoff), and the second sentence states a concrete conditional rule: when the build has errors, attach error logs and the contents of problem files. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to use continue_task to receive corrected files) are given, preventing a 5.

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