Conftest verify

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

The description goes well beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations by explaining what the tool returns: per-file pass/fail results, NO_TESTS_FOUND when no test rules exist, and CONFTEST_NOT_FOUND when the binary is unavailable. This gives an agent concrete expectations about success, failure, and external dependency behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 three sentences and each one earns its place: first the core action, then the conceptual equivalence, then return/error behavior. It front-loades the purpose and avoids repetition or 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?

With three optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies the key operational details an agent needs: what results to expect, the no-tests case, and the required external dependency. The only meaningful gap is that it does not explicitly route away from similar sibling tools, which keeps it just short of fully complete.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with detailed descriptions, including allowed roots, defaults, and namespace behavior, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only general context about the policy directory and test files, which aligns with the `policy` parameter but does not materially increase parameter-level understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and names the exact resource (`test_*` rules in `*_test.rego` files) with the goal of verifying that conftest policies are correct. It also contrasts with `opa test` and conftest's loading machinery, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like `conftest_test`, `rego_test`, or `rego_verify`.

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 makes the domain clear — a conftest policy directory — and notes an equivalent behavior (`opa test`), which implies when the tool might be appropriate. It also states a prerequisite (`conftest` on PATH or `CONFTEST_BINARY` set), but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against similarly named sibling tools, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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