verify_fix

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

The description discloses that the tool runs detectors over a code snippet (NOT the filesystem) and reports remaining classical crypto. With no annotations, it carries the full burden. It lacks details on response format, authentication needs, or side effects, which are important for a verification tool.

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, no fluff. First sentence states function, second sentence states usage and input requirements. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should ideally mention the output structure (e.g., list of findings, severity). It only says 'report any classical crypto that remains', which is vague. With sibling tools like scan_path that also detect crypto, more differentiation or output details would improve completeness.

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 each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between filename and language ('filename overrides language via extension') and says to 'provide code plus a language or filename', which is helpful beyond the 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 it runs quantakrypto detectors over a code snippet to report remaining classical crypto, and explicitly says to use it to confirm an edit removed quantum-vulnerable usage. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, differentiating it from siblings like scan_path (filesystem) or inventory_crypto.

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?

It explicitly says when to use: 'Use this to confirm an edit actually removed the quantum-vulnerable usage.' It also provides input guidance: 'Provide code plus a language or filename.' However, it does not mention when not to use or list alternatives explicitly, though the sibling list implies alternatives for other tasks.

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