fullscope_verify_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that compressed output preserves original line numbers via virtual markers, confirms content matches, and returns raw line with ±5 lines context. While this is good, it could also state that the tool is read-only and non-destructive.

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 with three sentences: purpose, behavioral details, and usage guidance. No wasted 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?

Given the tool’s simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, how it works, and when to use it. It explains return context (±5 lines) and optional verification. No gaps or missing info.

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 param descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between compressed view and raw file, the ±5 lines context, and the optional expected_content parameter's role in verifying the match. This enhances understanding beyond schema alone.

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 a line number from a compressed view against the raw file.' It specifies the action (verify), resource (line number from compressed view vs raw file), and distinguishes from sibling tools like fullscope_context or fullscope_expand by focusing on confirmation and context retrieval.

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 advises 'Use before editing to confirm the exact location,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives among siblings, leaving slight room for ambiguity.

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