Verify a code fix is complete by scanning for untouched references to changed symbols and missing test coverage.
Is the fix complete? Find other references to changed symbols not touched by this fix.
Returns: {symbols: [...], other_call_sites: {...}, untouched_count: int, adds_test: bool, is_revert: bool, notes: [...]}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | No | ||
| head | No | ||
| repo | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden but does disclose the operation ('find references') and a detailed return shape ('Returns: {symbols: [...], other_call_sites: {...}, untouched_count: int...}'). It does not state side-effects or permissions, though the read-only nature is implicit. This is reasonable transparency for an analysis 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?
Three short, purposeful blocks: a framing question, a one-line action, and a structured return shape. No filler or repetition.
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 output format is fully documented, but the input semantics are absent and there is no guidance on how repo/base/head relate to the fix being checked. With no output schema or annotations, the definition is incomplete for a 3-param 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% and the description does not explain base, head, or repo. The terms 'changed symbols' and 'this fix' are not mapped to parameter values, so an agent cannot know what to supply.
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 action: 'Find other references to changed symbols not touched by this fix.' This clearly conveys it checks completeness by locating untouched references, distinguishing it from siblings like verify_fix or get_test_impact.
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?
Implies use when checking whether a fix is complete, but provides no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. No exclusions or routing to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.