catalog_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a read-style integrity check that reports drift and does not perform assembly (no build side effect), which is useful. However it omits any statement about mutation safety, permissions, or what the drift report contains.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the key constraint ('без сборки'). It wastes little space, though the untranslated jargon reduces immediate clarity.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and the non-assembly constraint. It stops short of describing the drift report's shape or the meaning of 'PD-basis', leaving an agent with a partial picture of the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to clarify at the parameter level.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (catalog integrity verification) and details the operation: traverse records, verify signature/PD-basis, report drift. This distinguishes it from siblings like catalog_list, catalog_search, and catalog_add. The opaque 'как moat-check' analogy and undefined 'PD-basis' jargon keep it short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Без сборки' (without assembly) implies it is not the build/assemble path, hinting at one exclusion. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus close alternatives such as validate_manifest, doctor, governance_verify, or fidelity_check, all of which plausibly overlap with catalog verification.

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