context_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks commits in the repo the server runs in and clarifies the classification scheme. The description implies a read-only operation without stating it explicitly, but no contradictions are present.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action and key details. Every sentence adds value, and no extraneous information is present.

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 the tool has one parameter that is not explained, contextual completeness is lacking. While an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the missing parameter explanation is a gap. The description covers the main purpose and behavior but not the full parameter semantics.

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 one optional parameter 'segment' with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no meaning. The description does not explain what 'segment' does or how it affects the listing/classification, leaving the agent without necessary context to set the parameter correctly.

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 lists 'change' entries and classifies them against GIT (ground truth) using specific labels like 'merged', 'present-unmerged', 'missing', or 'CLAIM (no git ref)'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., context_log, context_pull) by focusing on verification/integrity checking.

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 provides guidance on when to use the tool, emphasizing that a tool logging 'fixed' is NOT done; done = merged in git. It implies the tool is used to verify completion status, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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