Verify TNLs

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

The description adds a key behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: 'verify failures are data, not isError.' This tells the agent that failures are returned as data rather than errors, which is crucial for correct handling. It also notes the return of a structured report, providing useful context for tool invocation.

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, consisting of two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second provides a crucial behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary information or 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's purpose, parameter, and a key behavioral aspect. However, it could be more complete by explicitly stating that it is a read-only verification tool and how it relates to sibling tools, but the current level is adequate.

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 100% coverage with a description for the 'paths' parameter: 'Code paths the agent intends to edit.' The tool description does not add any additional meaning or clarification beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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: 'Verify the TNLs impacted by a set of code paths.' It specifies the verb (verify) and resource (TNLs impacted by code paths), and mentions the return of a structured report. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_impacted_tnls' which also deals with TNLs, slightly reducing clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'get_impacted_tnls' or 'propose_tnl_diff'. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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