post_fix_verify

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the core workflow (baseline capture, re-sampling, alerting) and probe types. It does not mention lifecycle details like persistence or cancellation, but the main behavior is clear.

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 (4 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence defines action, second explains mechanism, third usage context, fourth probe types. No unnecessary information.

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 and lack of output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage, and probe details adequately. However, it does not explain the return value (likely a watch ID) or how to manage the watch later, leaving some gaps.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema by summarizing probe types (http/command/file_hash) and explaining the default baseline behavior when 'expected' is omitted. The schedule_offsets_min default is also highlighted.

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 registers a post-fix verification watch, captures a baseline, schedules re-samples, and emits a honk on divergence. It distinguishes from sibling watch tools by focusing on post-fix verification.

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 explicitly says 'Use after any fix whose surface signal might shift' and gives examples like load-balancer drift and cache invalidation, providing clear guidance on when to use. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is strong.

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