Verify Task Completions

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

The description states the tool writes VERIFICATION.md, which is a write operation, contradicting the annotation readOnlyHint=true. This is a clear annotation contradiction. The description does not disclose the side effect of file writing beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences with no fluff. Each sentence adds distinct information: reading TASKS.md, checking code paths, detecting phantom completions, and writing output.

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?

No output schema is provided. The description mentions writing VERIFICATION.md but does not explain its content or format. Given the tool's verification purpose, more detail on the output would be beneficial. Annotations partially fill gaps but not completely.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context about TASKS.md but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool reads TASKS.md, checks code paths for implementation evidence, detects phantom completions, and writes VERIFICATION.md. The verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like sdd_verify_tests.

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 implies usage when tasks need verification after implementation, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use it compared to alternatives. No exclusions or context are provided.

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