Walks the hash-chained audit log and verifies every entry. Returns chain integrity status - valid/invalid, entry count, and where the chain breaks if tampered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, explaining the specific verification process (hash-chained walk) and return details (integrity status, entry count, break location).
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 two sentences, provides all essential information without redundancy, and is efficiently front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description completely covers its purpose, behavior, and return values, making it self-sufficient for selection and invocation.
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 tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information.
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 the verb 'walks' and 'verifies' the resource 'hash-chained audit log', and distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing the returned integrity status, entry count, and break location.
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 the tool is used for verifying the entire audit chain integrity but provides no explicit guidance on when to use over siblings like 'accountability_check' or 'drift_audit', nor when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among multiple audit/check tools (e.g., accountability_check, drift_audit, security_audit). However, descriptions and naming help differentiate their specific scopes, so ambiguity is low.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_archive_safety, propagate_family_member), making them predictable and easy to understand.
33 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a broad domain (system health, audits, propagation, session management, etc.). The count is justified by the comprehensive scope, though it may feel heavy for agents.
The tool set covers the entire lifecycle of system management: health monitoring, audits, propagation, sessions, compliance, and more. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a nervous system framework.
