Verify TNLs

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by stating verification returns a structured report. It adds key behavior: 'verify failures are data, not isError', which prevents the agent from misinterpreting verification failures as runtime errors. This adds value beyond readOnlyHint.

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, front-loading the purpose and adding a key behavioral note. It is concise and every sentence earns its place. A slight improvement would be adding a hint about when to use this tool over siblings.

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 required parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what it does and a key behavioral trait. However, it could mention that the tool is read-only (consistent with readOnlyHint) and that no changes are made.

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% with a single required parameter 'paths'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'code paths' but the schema already describes it well. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool verifies TNLs impacted by code paths, with a specific verb 'verify' and resource 'TNLs'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'approve_tnl_diff' and 'get_impacted_tnls' by focusing on verification rather than approval or retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'propose_tnl_diff'.

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 implies usage when one wants to check TNLs before editing code paths. It mentions that failures are data, not isError, which helps interpret results. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative sibling tools are mentioned.

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