verify_claimed_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it reveals that verification is against the local Git working tree, that ghost claims cause a hard rejection, and that the agent must complete missing work or admit failure. It does not detail the exact output or failure format, but the behavioral contract is clearly communicated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful guidance. The description is compact without being vague.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description covers invocation trigger, claim content, and rejection consequences. It could be slightly more complete by describing what the response looks like on success or failure, but the essential context for calling it correctly is present.

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 the schema already documents the 'claims' parameter. The description adds value by telling the agent what kinds of claims to include (files created/edited/deleted, packages installed), reinforcing correct usage beyond the schema example.

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 a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('claimed coding actions against the local Git working tree'). It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'inspect_actual_changes'.

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 gives strong, explicit guidance on when to use the tool: call it with every claimed created, edited, deleted file or installed package before reporting completion. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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