get_customer_zero_evidenceReturn the public self-audit evidence and the explicit boundary between technical readiness and independent discovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | ||
| next_proof | Yes | ||
| receipt_url | Yes | ||
| customer_zero | Yes | ||
| externally_verified | Yes | ||
| technical_audit_score | Yes | ||
| independent_discovery_status | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the evidence is 'public self-audit' and relates to a boundary, which provides some additional context beyond annotations but is not extensive.
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 a single, non-redundant sentence that gets straight to the point. No waste or extraneous information.
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 no parameters and presence of an output schema, the description explains the return content adequately for a simple retrieval tool. However, it could clarify what 'explicit boundary' means or note if results are fixed.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 applies.
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 states the tool returns 'public self-audit evidence' and an 'explicit boundary', which is a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_audit_result, which may overlap.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., audit_app, get_audit_result) is provided. The description implies context but offers no explicit usage criteria or exclusions.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: queueing an audit, retrieving results, creating a remediation plan, and fetching specific evidence. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: audit_app, create_distribution_plan, get_audit_result, get_customer_zero_evidence. The pattern is predictable and uniform.
With only 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for the domain of auditing and remediation planning. Each tool serves a necessary function without excess or deficiency.
The tools cover the core workflow: queue audit, retrieve result, create plan, and get evidence. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no list or delete for audits), but the essential operations are present.