verdoc_agents_md

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: every path is checked against the git tree, ambiguous items are marked unverified rather than guessed, and the cost in USDC. This gives the agent a strong understanding of how the tool behaves.

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 efficiently structured: it front-loads the main purpose, then adds verification behavior, usage guidance, and cost in separate short sentences. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary fluff.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool produces, how it verifies data, when to use it, and the cost. The format parameter covers return details, so no gap is apparent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'public' repo and cost but these are not parameter semantics. Therefore it stays at the baseline.

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 purpose: 'Generate an AGENTS.md for a public GitHub repository' with specifics about content (build/test commands, directory map, entry points, edit boundaries). This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tool verdoc_scan, especially with the usage note.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before working in a repository you do not already know,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is specific and actionable, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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