vibe_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the validation criteria but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects. The description lacks transparency on behavior beyond basic purpose.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but not well-structured. It lacks detail and does not use front-loading effectively. It is adequate but not optimized.

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 validation tool with three parameters and no schema coverage, the description should provide more context about return values and usage. Although an output schema exists, it is not referenced. The description is incomplete for guiding correct invocation.

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 explain parameters. It only mentions 'code/specs' generically without describing the three parameters (ctx, specification, files). This leaves the agent unable to understand what each parameter does.

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 validates against WCAG, design system, and code quality. It uses a specific verb 'validate' and identifies resources. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'validate_ui_spec' or 'vibe_review'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not context or explicit alternatives are mentioned, which is needed given the many sibling tools with 'vibe' prefix.

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