verify_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the purpose but does not explain side effects, return values, or error handling. The token 'after edits' hints at context but lacks detail.

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?

Single sentence front-loads verb and resource, zero filler. Information density is high for its length.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values may be covered there. However, with 2 params and no annotations, the description lacks details on parameter roles and expected usage. It is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning by describing target syntax beyond schema, but does not explain 'path' or 'expected_targets' in detail. Baseline for 0% coverage is higher, but partial compensation earns a 3.

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 specifies the action ('verify') and resource ('expected_text at exact structural targets'), and provides the target syntax (tN.rN.cN[.pN] / bN). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'verify_fill' or 'find_text'.

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 after edits ('after edits') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like preview_batch_replace or verify_fill. No exclusions or when-not guidance are provided.

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