verify_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it explicitly says source code is not modified, checks are run against a git baseline, and extraChecks are temporary. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, non-mutation note second, method and custom-check capability after. Every clause adds information, and there is no filler.

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?

Together with the output schema and readOnly/destructive annotations, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it knows the target, the non-mutating scope, the git-baseline context, and the task/project selection rule. The missing checksMode explanation and lack of explicit sibling routing keep it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully explains that taskId/projectPath are a one-of requirement, that extraChecks are temporary additions, and that analysis is relative to a git baseline. The main gap is checksMode, whose append/replace semantics are left unexplained.

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 a specific action ('executes acceptance/verification'), a specific target ('completed task or project path'), and a concrete method ('automatic command checks + code analysis relative to git baseline'). This clearly distinguishes verify_task from siblings like run_task, continue_task, or query_task, even without naming them.

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 gives a clear use context: verify completed tasks or project paths, and requires exactly one of task/project. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the '已完成' constraint and the verification framing are enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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