pin.verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying use of 'git show' and disclosing the output (HEAD match and claimVerdict), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Close the prove loop') and packs essential details (git show, mustContain, output fields) without wasted words.

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 description covers the primary action and output (HEAD match and claimVerdict), and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema and five parameters, it leaves gaps: the meaning of 'line' is unclear, how mustContain interacts with claim-text is vague, and repository handling is not explained. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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. It introduces 'path@SHA' (suggesting sourcePath and sha) and 'mustContain' purpose, but it fails to explain the 'repository' and 'line' parameters. Given five parameters, this is insufficient—line has no hint at all.

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 action: 're-check path@SHA with git show' with an optional mustContain for claim-text. It distinguishes pin.verify from siblings by framing it as 'Close the prove loop' and reporting HEAD match and claimVerdict, which aligns with verification rather than proving or setting.

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 phrase 'Close the prove loop' implies this is used after pin.prove to re-check a pinned path at a given SHA. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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