verify_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions running test commands, which implies side effects, but does not clarify safety, required permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. It also omits what happens on failure or if constraints are violated. This is insufficient transparency for a tool that executes commands.

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 of 16 words, front-loading the core purpose ('Verify... against a saved pre-edit plan') and then succinctly adding key behaviors. No extraneous information; every word 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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, execution of test commands), the description is too brief. It does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., plan vs plan_json), the optional nature of 'since_plan', or what the output looks like. Since there is no output schema, the agent has no guidance on return values. More completeness is needed for reliable invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by mentioning 'validates constraints' (ties to plan constraints) and 'runs test commands' (ties to run_commands). However, it does not explain the interplay between 'plan' and 'plan_json' parameters or the role of 'since_plan'. Overall, it meets the baseline without significant added value.

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 verifies a diff or changed files against a pre-edit plan and validates constraints/runs tests. The verb 'verify' and resource 'diff/changed files vs plan' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'validate_patch' or 'review_patch', so it misses the highest clarity mark.

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 creating a pre-edit plan (e.g., via 'plan_change'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_patch'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The context (sibling tools) is not leveraged to help the agent decide.

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