verify_changes

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true is not reflected in the description. While it notes it doesn't stage/commit, it doesn't disclose potential destructive side effects from running build/test scripts, such as modifying the workspace. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the safety hint.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no redundant information. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is complex (verification pipeline with multiple profiles and timeouts), yet the description omits output format, side effects beyond not staging/committing, and the meaning of profiles. Given no output schema, the description should explain what results are returned. The destructive hint suggests more context is needed.

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 100% for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema; it mentions profiles but the schema already describes them. The timeout parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the description contributes no extra value.

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 verification pipeline) with explicit profiles, and distinguishes itself from sibling commit/stage tools by noting it does not stage or commit files. This makes its purpose clear and differentiates it from git_add/git_commit.

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 implies when to use (when you need to verify changes) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use. It mentions it doesn't stage/commit, which hints at usage before those operations, but lacks direct guidance.

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