lab_verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious trait — verification happens in the guest without executing the package — but is silent on what happens on hash mismatch, whether all file mismatches are reported, or any cost/latency of scanning package contents.

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?

A single tight sentence with the distinguishing constraint ('without executing') placed at the end where it lands as the key differentiator. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

Output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety profile, so the main remaining gaps are the undocumented parameters and the absence of failure/mismatch semantics or relationship to the lab_init/lab_stage/lab_collect pipeline. Adequate but noticeably thin for a three-required-parameter verification tool.

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 must carry the burden and it does not: vm_name is never mentioned beyond the vague 'in the guest', and no format expectations (hex digest casing/length, package_id shape, whether the hash covers the whole manifest) are given for any of the three required parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('re-verify') and concrete resources (package files and the manifest SHA-256) scoped to the guest. It is distinguishable from mutation siblings like lab_stage or lab_collect, though it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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 phrase 'without executing the package' implies the verification-only use case, but the description never states when to pick this over lab_diagnostics, lab_stage, or lab_collect, nor what precondition ('re-'verify implies a prior stage) must hold.

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