verify_index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral details: the specific checks performed (e.g., embedding dimension consistency, orphan detection) and the return format, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 highly concise: two sentences plus a JSON return format specification. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No wordiness or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, but the description completely covers the return value (JSON with ok, status, checks array) and the scope of checks. For a structural check tool, this is fully adequate and leaves no gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description appropriately adds no parameter information because none is needed. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 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?

The description clearly states it is a read-only structural check of the local SQLite index, enumerating specific checks like integrity_check, foreign-key violations, and FTS5 integrity. The verb 'verify' and resource 'index' are specific, and the tool is well-differentiated from siblings like check_duplication or check_architecture.

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 explicitly advises using this tool as a preflight before reindex/embed_repo or when search is misbehaving, providing clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, though the context is clear enough.

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