phionyx_verify_paths

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It states that the tool returns discrepancies, trust score, and warnings, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is helpful, though the first sentence could be slightly tightened. Overall, every sentence contributes value without significant redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists (context confirms), the description adequately covers the tool's function and return types (discrepancies, trust score, warnings). For a tool with two parameters and no nested objects, this is sufficient for an agent to understand 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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds explicit semantics: claimed_affected and claimed_tested are comma-separated paths. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the raw schema, though more detail (e.g., path format requirements) could be added.

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: cross-check claimed code paths against git diff reality. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('paths'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on path verification against git diff, while siblings like verify_claim may handle other claim types.

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 tells when to call the tool ('to verify your own declarations'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given the sibling list, some implicit differentiation exists, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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