verify_index

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

The description provides a detailed account of the tool's behavior: it performs a read-only operation (reads on-disk content, recomputes hash, compares), consistent with readOnlyHint=true. It also discloses the output format (drift/missing/error counts and drifting section IDs).

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?

Two sentences: the first succinctly describes the mechanism and output, the second provides a usage tip. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly states what the tool reports (drift/missing/error counts and IDs). For a simple read-only verification tool, this is complete. Annotations already declare read-only, so no missing behavioral details.

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 50% (repo parameter lacks description). The description adds meaning for the sample parameter ('Sample N sections via the sample arg for cheap CI checks'), but does not elaborate on repo. Given low schema coverage, more compensation was needed for repo.

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 is a 'Byte-offset integrity check' and details the process: walks sections, reads on-disk content, recomputes SHA-256, and compares to stored hash. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_index_overview (likely a summary) or search operations.

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 suggests using the sample argument for 'cheap CI checks', giving clear guidance on when to use a lighter version. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context implies full verification is for detailed integrity audits.

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