verify_fixes

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

Describes the outcome (grade transitions, resolved issues count) and that it closes the loop. With no annotations, the description bears the burden and does well, though it could mention side effects or data persistence. No contradiction with missing 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: what it does, when to use, what to pass, and a cost note. Front-loaded with key action and 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?

With 4 params and no output schema, the description covers the return (Report Card with transitions, resolved/remaining issues). Could include error handling or prerequisites but sufficient for core behavior.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description only mentions url and codeDirectory, not width/height, but schema already describes them. No added parameter meaning beyond schema.

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 re-runs the full audit pipeline and compares against the original review, showing a before/after Report Card. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the purpose is distinct from siblings like review_ui.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this AFTER implementing fixes from a review_ui run' and instructs to pass the same URL and code directory. Also notes it's free and runs within Claude Code, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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