verify_pipeline

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical timeout behavior, including the hard 120s limit and per-stage defaults, and warns about timeouts for large test suites. It does not specify return format or potential side effects of running scripts, but the most important behavior is covered.

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 sentences, with the purpose in the first sentence and crucial warnings/alternatives in the following two. Each sentence earns its place, no filler.

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 4-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides clear purpose, timeout warnings, and alternatives. It could mention what the return value looks like (e.g., logs, exit codes), but the absence is not critical given the tool's nature. The 'reindex first if new' tip is present in the schema, so it's covered.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by elaborating on the timeout parameter's default (30s per stage) and suggesting stage filtering for time-sensitive runs, complementing the schema's field-level details.

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 states a specific action: 'Run lint/test/typecheck from package.json.' It clearly identifies the resource and scope, and distinguishes from test_bridge by naming it as an alternative for full test runs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from tsc_check, which could overlap with the 'typecheck' stage.

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 states when to use alternatives: 'Large test suites will time out — prefer stages=lint or test_bridge(action=run) for full test runs.' Also provides context about the 120s hard timeout and per-stage defaults, giving clear situational guidance.

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