taskguard_verify_done

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the verification action but omits details like side effects (read-only?), error handling on failure, or whether it blocks or returns a boolean. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavioral impacts.

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, front-loaded with usage context, no fluff. Could be slightly improved by adding parameter explanations without verbosity.

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 no output schema and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks parameter semantics and behavioral transparency. Sibling list suggests a family of tools, but no guidance on how verify relates specifically to the others.

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 0% meaning description adds no explanation for parameters. The 'strict' parameter (boolean, default false) is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent without guidance on its effect. SessionsId is required but not described.

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 checks done criteria, checkpoints, blockers, and optional evidence to prevent false completion. Verb 'verify' and resource 'done' are specific, and the context of final response, commit, PR, or handoff distinguishes it from sibling tools that add or update task data.

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?

Explicitly says call before final response, commit, PR, or handoff, providing strong usage timing. However, does not mention when not to use or alternatives if criteria are not met.

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