verify_requirements

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says it 'scans' and 'verifies,' implying read-only analysis without explicitly confirming it doesn't modify the codebase or specifying any required context like a PRD. The description also doesn't mention if it requires pre-existing requirement mappings or how it handles missing keywords, which is crucial for an agent to anticipate side effects.

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 with no filler, efficiently communicating the core purpose. However, it sacrifices specificity for brevity, leaving out key behavioral details that would make the space worthwhile.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the tool lacks annotations, parameter descriptions, and usage guidance, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly. The optional parameters and vague keyword mapping leave too much unspecified for reliable selection among many similar tools.

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 compensate, but it only vaguely references 'feature coverage' and 'codebase,' which could correspond to feature_name and path without explicit mapping. The agent cannot determine what path expects (a directory, file) or what feature_name values are valid, leaving the parameters under-defined.

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 scans a codebase, maps requirement keywords, and verifies implementation status and feature coverage, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like verify_work or extract_requirements, making the purpose clear but not uniquely positioned.

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 the tool is for checking requirement implementation, but it doesn't state when to use it versus alternatives such as verify_outcome or validate_architecture. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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