cmmn-verify_sentry_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only verification operation (no side effects), returns a count and mismatches. There are no contradictions, and the behavior is well disclosed for a verification tool.

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 succinct sentences: the first states the purpose and output, the second adds a usage note. Every sentence is valuable, with no redundancy or fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple verification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return value (count and mismatches) but lacks detail on the mismatch format. It is adequate but could be more complete by describing the output structure or any prerequisites.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter (case_id) described as 'Case ID to verify (@rid format)'. The description adds context by mentioning the fields checked (source_ref, guards_item) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it verifies sentry JSON data matches graph edges, checking specific fields (source_ref, guards_item) against OnPart/Guards edges. It also describes the return value (count and mismatches), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cmmn-create_sentry or cmmn-evaluate_sentry.

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 says 'Useful for data integrity checks,' which implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cmmn-check_sentry_condition or cmmn-evaluate_sentry. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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