verify_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive call. The description hints that it persists a baseline artifact, but omits what side effects occur, whether repeat runs re-capture the baseline, auth requirements, and timeout/timeoutMs impact.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler or repetition. It is arguably under-specified rather than concise, but structurally it is tight.

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?

A four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations covering side effects or errors, yet the description says nothing about what the verification returns, how failure is surfaced, or how the three optional parameters change behavior. Too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 only 25%: `id` is richly documented, but `url`, `dryRun`, and `timeoutMs` have no descriptions. The description mentions none of these parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap and adds nothing beyond the schema.

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+resource: 'Run visual verification on a task,' and adds the mechanism ('captures baseline and compares'). No sibling tool does verification, so it is distinguishable in practice, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from the surrounding task tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. does a baseline need to exist first?), and no mention of alternatives or when not to run it. The agent must infer all of this.

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