mcp_qwen_verify_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the core interaction: sending the assembled structure, attaching error logs and problematic files on failure, and the two possible Qwen responses ('ПРОЕКТ_СОБРАН_ВЕРНО' or corrected files). It does not cover timeouts, failures, or side effects, but the main behavior is clearly communicated.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the step label, then covers the operation, the error-path payload, and the expected outcome. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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?

For a workflow tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description provides the invocation context, the conditional payload, and the expected result alternatives. It does not specify the exact response format for corrected files or failure behavior, but the schema covers the parameter shapes and the description gives enough operational context for an agent to call the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful conditional semantics beyond the schema: error_log and troubled_files are attached only when the build had errors, and assembled_structure is the project tree being verified. It does not add format or value-level details, but it does clarify when optional parameters should be populated.

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 names a specific verb ('Отправляет'), a concrete resource ('структуру собранного проекта и отчет о сборке/ошибках'), and a clear recipient ('субагенту Qwen'). The 'ШАГ 6 ВЕРИФИКАЦИИ' label and stated outcomes ('подтверждает' or 'возвращает исправленные файлы') make it clearly distinguishable from the sibling submit/check/continue tools.

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 'ШАГ 6 ВЕРИФИКАЦИИ' prefix provides clear workflow context, and the conditional sentence 'Если проект собран с ошибками...' explains when the error-related payload is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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