ralph.run_verification

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description discloses the precise commands run, their order, and the failure behavior ('stop on first failure'). This is strong for a test-execution tool. It does not mention side effects like npm ci modifying dependencies or how timeouts are handled, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose and exact behavior with zero wasted words. The strict-gate framing comes first, followed by the command details, which is an ideal structure.

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 simple command-runner tool, the description covers the essential command and failure semantics. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the agent will receive back (exit status, logs, summary), nor does it describe how timeoutSeconds affects execution. This is a noticeable but not severe gap.

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 sole parameter, timeoutSeconds, is not mentioned in the description at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining that this parameter sets an execution timeout, but it does not. The parameter name and default value provide only minimal inferable meaning.

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 clearly specifies a concrete action ('Run strict verification gate') and the exact command sequence with execution order ('npm run ci, then npm run test:e2e'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle planning, file operations, or task state.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to invoke this tool versus any alternative, nor are prerequisites or exclusions stated. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'verification gate' and the command names, so an agent has to infer the appropriate context.

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