verify_data_module

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses that XSD validation uses the user's own schemas via S1000D_SPEC_DIR, that BREX runs along the brexDmRef chain, that skipped steps report state 'not-run', and that the tool does not judge conformance. It stops short of stating that all operations are read-only or how failures are surfaced across steps.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the object and the check list, closing with the scope exclusion. Nothing is redundant with the schema and every clause 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?

For a 7-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description still says what comes back: a VerificationStatus plus per-step details, and that skipped steps appear as 'not-run'. The main gap is that the possible status values and the shape of per-step details are left unspecified, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 still adds value by explaining that BREX and referenced modules are resolved from S1000D_CSDB_DIR and S1000D_SPEC_DIR, and by clarifying the BREX-along-brexDmRef-chain behavior that motivates csdbDirs. It adds chain semantics rather than repeating per-parameter text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (verify one S1000D data module) and enumerates the four checks performed: well-formedness, XSD against the user's own schemas, BREX along brexDmRef, and reference resolution. The final clause ('Does NOT decide S1000D conformance') fences the scope off from siblings like verify_csdb, so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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 'one data module' framing implies single-artifact use versus the CSDB-wide verify_csdb, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit statement of when to call validate_schema or check_references instead of this composite. Usage is inferable from overlapping sibling names rather than stated.

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