verify_index

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

Describes the process in detail: walks every section, reads content, recomputes hash, compares. Implies read-only operation (byte-range-reads) but does not explicitly state no side effects. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; covers well but lacks explicit read-only declaration.

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, no wasted words. First sentence defines core function, second adds detail and a use case. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Covers key aspects: what it does, how it works, parameters, and a practical use case (CI). Does not mention output format details or error handling, but for a simple check tool with no output schema this is adequate. Missing prerequisites (e.g., repo must exist) but acceptable given clarity.

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 'sample' parameter is described both in schema and in description (for CI checks), adding context beyond schema. The required 'repo' parameter lacks description in both schema (no description) and tool description, but the description overall adds value for sampling. Schema coverage 50% is medium; description compensates somewhat.

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?

Description clearly states it performs a byte-offset integrity check by walking sections, reading content, recomputing SHA-256, and comparing to stored hash. Reports drift, missing, error counts and drifting section IDs. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on using the 'sample' parameter for cheap CI checks, indicating a specific use case. However, does not mention when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives.

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