ait_verify_fix

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it discloses that this is read-only verification against an on-disk baseline, names the five verdict fields, and sets an explicit expectation that this is AST re-verification of 13 rules rather than a correctness proof.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation, then structured with USE WHEN and DO NOT USE blocks. Dense but every clause, including the 'after writing the patch' exclusion, carries decision-relevant 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, it supplies the verifier's return categories, the precondition on the file state, and an explicit limitation on what the verdict means. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by requiring the file be the unmodified on-disk baseline and by stressing a full replacement source string rather than a diff, which prevents a realistic misuse.

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 ('re-run the 13-rule catalog over a candidate source string and diff the result against the file on disk') and enumerates the outcome categories, so the operation is unmistakable.

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?

Explicit USE WHEN and DO NOT USE clauses: use before writing a patch while the file is unmodified, and do not use afterwards because the baseline would equal the candidate. It also excludes the semantic-proof use case, which routes the agent away from ait_review-style tools.

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