verify_frankability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool runs the same round-trip as apply-edits, that it is a standalone check, and that it returns JSON with 'ok, bundleable, scanIssues.' This implies a non-mutating verification operation. It doesn't explicitly state it is read-only, but the context strongly suggests it. Minor gaps like error behavior are not covered, but overall the behavior is transparent.

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 concise (four sentences) and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then explains independence and usage context, and ends with the return value. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded. No 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?

For a tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains why the tool exists, when to use it, and what it returns. The output schema exists, so the explicit return listing is a bonus. Missing elements like prerequisites (e.g., does symbols_dir need to be absolute?) or potential error conditions, but these are not critical given the simplicity.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter, symbols_dir, but with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explicitly explain the parameter; it only implies that the tool operates on a Symbols project. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it fails to elaborate on what symbols_dir should contain (e.g., a path to the project root, expected format). The parameter is somewhat inferable from the tool name and purpose, but not explicitly described.

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's specific purpose: 'Verify a Symbols project bundles cleanly via frank.toJSON.' It uses a specific verb (Verify) and resource (Symbols project), and further distinguishes itself from audit/fix by noting it is an independent standalone check. This sufficiently separates it from sibling tools like audit_component or apply_frankability_edit_ops.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Useful for the agent to confirm a project is in a known-good state before starting a fix loop, or after a series of manual edits.' It also states it is 'independent of audit/fix,' implying that for actual auditing or fixing, other tools should be used. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear and practical.

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